# Texas AI Docket The whole record as plain Markdown, one decision after another, in the order they are filed. Every fact carries a quote from a source that was fetched, and at least one of those sources is the filing, the statute or the agency itself. Licence CC BY 4.0. Built October 24th, 2026. The canonical page for any decision below is https://texasaidocket.com/item//. --- # PUCT Project 58000, rulemaking to update ERCOT transmission cost recovery, comment deadline reached The Public Utility Commission of Texas is amending its wholesale and investor owned utility retail transmission cost recovery rules for the ERCOT region. The commission published a proposal for publication amending Section 25.192 and Section 25.193 and adding a new Section 25.252, and set a comment deadline of August 11th, 2026. Utilities and data center developers filed comments on the deadline date. So did consumer advocates and ERCOT itself. The project index now stands at 70 filings. The commission next considers the proposal at an open meeting before adopting a final rule. - Topic: power-and-the-grid - Decided by: Public Utility Commission of Texas (state-agency) - Where: Statewide - Status: pending - Public access: Comment window open - Comment closes: 2026-08-11 - Take part: https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=58000&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Ascending - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2025-04-23 · filed: Project opened by PUC Rules and Projects - 2026-07-09 · comment opens: Proposal for publication filed and acknowledged by the Texas Register - 2026-08-11 · comment closes: Comment deadline stated in the Texas Register acknowledgement ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-16 · The filing index moved from 66 to 67 with a late comment from Antora Energy. The proposal for publication also creates a new Section 25.252, which the earlier summary did not carry. Checked against the PUCT Interchange filing index for control number 58000. - 2026-08-19 · Checked and unchanged. The filing index still stands at 67, and the most recent entry is still the August 11th comment from Antora Energy. - 2026-08-22 · Checked and unchanged. The filing index for control number 58000 still stands at 67 filings and the most recent entry is still the August 11th comment. The proposal is still awaiting an open meeting. - 2026-08-25 · The comment window closed on August 11th. - 2026-08-28 · The comment window on Project 58000 closed on August 11th and has not reopened. The commission has not yet published an order adopting the amended transmission cost recovery rules. What utilities and data center developers filed on the deadline day is still the last word in the project. - 2026-09-01 · The transmission-cost rulemaking remains unresolved after comments closed. The commission still has not published an adopting order. - 2026-09-02 · The comment window closed on August 11th. - 2026-09-05 · The rulemaking on ERCOT transmission cost recovery is still sitting after its comment deadline and the commission has published no proposal for adoption. What the comments changed is still unknown. - 2026-09-08 · The rulemaking on how ERCOT recovers transmission cost is still sitting where the comment deadline left it. No order adopting the amended rules has been published, so what the filings changed is still not on the record. - 2026-09-09 · The comment window closed on August 11th. Nothing has been proposed for adoption since, so the transmission cost recovery rule is still where it was when the window shut. - 2026-09-12 · The comment window closed on August 11th. - 2026-09-13 · The comment window closed on August 11th. - 2026-09-16 · The comment window closed on August 11th. Nothing has been posted since to say what the commission intends to do with what it received, so the transmission cost recovery rule is still where it was left. - 2026-09-19 · The comment window closed on August 11th. - 2026-09-23 · The rulemaking is still sitting between a closed comment file and a proposal, with nothing new posted to the project. - 2026-09-26 · The comment file closed on August 11th and the commission has not yet brought a proposal for adoption to an open meeting. - 2026-09-29 · The transmission cost recovery rule has not come to an open meeting for adoption, and the comment file that closed on August 11th has taken nothing new. - 2026-10-02 · Three filings reached the project on October 1st. One was voided the same day and another was the Texas Energy Buyers Alliance and JPI responding on the minimum billing demand study. The index now holds 70 filings and still carries no adoption order. - 2026-10-05 · The commission's transmission cost recovery rulemaking still sits past its comment deadline of August 11th, with no adopted rule on its page. - 2026-10-08 · The project page still shows no adopted rule on transmission cost recovery, and the comment window that closed on August 11th has not reopened. - 2026-10-11 · The transmission cost recovery project still shows no adopted rule. Its comment window shut on August 11th and has not reopened. - 2026-10-15 · The transmission cost recovery project still has no adopted rule on its page, and its comment window stays shut. - 2026-10-18 · The project page for transmission cost recovery still carries the proposal and no adopted rule. Its comment window closed on August 11th and stays closed. - 2026-10-21 · The comment window closed on August 11th. - 2026-10-24 · The commission's docket on transmission cost recovery still reads as it did, with the comment deadline passed on August 11th. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The project's official case style identifies it as the ERCOT transmission cost recovery rulemaking. > Rulemaking to Update Wholesale and IOU Retail Transmission Cost Recovery in the ERCOT Region Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=58000&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Ascending ### The filing index records the number of filings in the project. > 70 filing(s). Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=58000&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Ascending ### The proposal for publication amends two named transmission cost recovery rules and adds a third. > PROPOSAL FOR PUBLICATION OF AMENDMENTS TO §25.192 and §25.193 and NEW §25.252 Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=58000&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Ascending ### The Texas Register acknowledgement filed in the project states the comment due date. > Texas Register Acknowledgement of Receipt - Comments Due 08.11.2026 Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/documents/?controlNumber=58000&itemNumber=9 ### An earlier staff memo in the project carried a July 31st comment deadline before the deadline was reset. > OM Item No. 29 - Staff Memo & PFP w/July 31 Comment Deadline Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=58000&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Ascending ### A legislative committee chairman filed a letter into the rulemaking on transmission cost recovery. > LETTER REGARDING EVALUATION OF TRANSMISSION COST RECOVERY Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=58000&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Ascending ### ERCOT filed comments on the proposal on the deadline date. > ELECTRIC RELIABILITY COUNCIL OF TEXAS, INC.’S COMMENTS REG Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=58000&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Ascending ### The Office of Public Utility Counsel, the statutory residential ratepayer advocate, filed comments on the deadline date. > OFFICE OF PUBLIC UTILITY COUNSEL’S COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSA Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=58000&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Ascending ### Data center and digital infrastructure companies filed comments in the rulemaking. > Rowan Digital Infrastructure Comments in Response to Propo Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=58000&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Ascending --- # PUCT Project 58482, proposed new rule on Large Load Demand Management Service, comment window now shut The Public Utility Commission of Texas has proposed a new rule governing demand management service for large electric loads. The proposal for publication creates a new Section 25.521. The comment window shut on September 4th, 2026 and the filing index now stands at 64 filings. Most of what the commission received arrived on the deadline itself. It came from the transmission utilities, from the grid operator, from generators, from an environmental group, from a data center trade association and from Google. The rule as published in the Texas Register does not contain the words data center. It draws its line at a total non-coincident peak demand at a single site of 75 megawatts or more. - Topic: power-and-the-grid - Decided by: Public Utility Commission of Texas (state-agency) - Where: Statewide - Status: open - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=58482&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Ascending - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-07-24 · ordered: Staff memo and proposal for publication with a September 4th comment deadline - 2026-07-30 · comment opens: Proposal for publication of new Section 25.521 filed - 2026-09-04 · comment closes: Comment deadline in the Texas Register acknowledgement - 2026-09-06 · filed: A supplemental public comment entered the index after the deadline ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-19 · The docket moved. The filing index reached 34 with a comment from Modern Tex Consulting on August 18th, on performance reporting and evaluation under the proposed rule. The September 4th public comment deadline is still published on the commission's calendar. - 2026-08-22 · Checked and unchanged. The filing index for control number 58482 still stands at 34 filings. The Texas Register acknowledgement in that index still gives a comment deadline of September 4th, 2026, so the window a Texan can file in is still open. - 2026-08-22 · Four assertions were corrected against this run's own fetch. The summary no longer calls the rule the category that covers data centers, because the published text does not contain the words. It no longer says individual Texans have filed, because the index publishes a party name and nothing about who a filer is. The filing count moves from 33 to 34. - 2026-08-22 · The earlier correction today reached the summary and not the public access field. That field still said individuals had filed without counsel. It is corrected now. - 2026-08-26 · Checked and unchanged. The commission's calendar still carries the September 4th public comment deadline for Project 58482, and the proposed rule text still never uses the words data center. The window is still open. - 2026-08-28 · Checked and unchanged. The commission's calendar feed still carries the September 4th, 2026 public comment deadline for Project 58482 in the commissioners hearing room, and the window is still open. Anyone may still file under the control number. - 2026-08-29 · The comment window is still open, closing September 4th. The commission's own calendar feed still carries that deadline as a dated entry naming the project. The proposed rule still draws its line at a demand threshold rather than at the words data center. - 2026-08-30 · The rule is still out for comment. The proposal for publication of new section 25.521 stands as filed, and the deadline the Texas Register acknowledged is September 4th. - 2026-09-02 · The comment window on the proposed Large Load Demand Management Service rule is still open and the commission's own filing list carries the deadline. Comments have been filed against the proposal since it was published. - 2026-09-03 · The comment window on the proposed Large Load Demand Management Service rule closes tomorrow, September 4th, 2026. The commission's calendar feed still carries that deadline as a dated entry of its own, and the proposal for publication of new section 25.521 stands as filed. Anyone meaning to file has one day left. The feed's own project strings are quotable again, now that the check reads a feed whose HTML is escaped inside its XML. The project a deadline belongs to is carried by a claim rather than by a summary alone. - 2026-09-04 · Today is the deadline. The filing index moved from 34 filings to 37. The three that arrived are comments on the proposal itself and the last two were filed the day before the window shuts. The Office of Public Utility Counsel, which represents residential and small commercial customers, filed on September 3rd. Texas Industrial Energy Consumers, which represents large industrial load, filed the same day. Nothing about the rule text or the deadline has changed. - 2026-09-07 · The window shut. The filing index moved from 37 filings to 64, and almost all of that arrived on the deadline day itself. Oncor, AEP Texas, CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric and Texas New Mexico Power all filed. So did the grid operator, NRG, Vistra, ENGIE and the Lower Colorado River Authority. The Sierra Club filed. The Data Center Coalition filed. Google filed under its own name. A supplemental comment from a member of the public was entered on September 6th, after the deadline. The index is still taking filings even though the dated way in has passed. What the commission does with any of it is not scheduled. - 2026-09-10 · The filing index still stands where the record left it and the case style has not changed. The commission's calendar feed no longer carries the September 4th deadline. That is what the feed does once a date has passed. The two entries the record quoted from it have been replaced by two the index still carries. The Texas Register acknowledgement filed under the control number still states the September 4th deadline, so the shut window stays readable from a source that keeps its own history. - 2026-09-10 · Corrected. One claim carried a source title naming the commission's calendar feed. The claim quotes the commission's filing index for control number 58482, and the source title now names that. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. Still open, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-16 · Still open. The proposed rule on how large loads would be asked to manage demand carries no new filing and no scheduled sitting. The door it leaves open has not moved either way. - 2026-09-19 · The comment window on the proposed large load rule is still shut and the commission has not brought a final rule forward. - 2026-09-23 · The proposed large load rule has not moved since comments shut, and no adoption order has issued. - 2026-09-26 · The large load demand management rule is still a proposal. Comments are shut and no adoption order has been posted to the project. - 2026-09-29 · No adoption order has reached the project, so large load demand management is still a proposed rule with its comment period over. - 2026-10-02 · Large load demand management is still a proposed rule in Project 58482. Its comment period is over and no adoption order has been filed. - 2026-10-05 · The large load demand management rule still reads as proposed, with no adoption order on the project page. - 2026-10-08 · The large load demand management proposal still sits on its project page as a proposal, and no order adopting it has been filed. - 2026-10-11 · The demand management proposal for large loads is still only a proposal on its project page. No adopting order has been filed. - 2026-10-15 · The large load demand management rule is still a proposal on its project page. No adopting order has been filed since the window shut. - 2026-10-18 · The demand management proposal still sits on its project page without an adopting order. The commission has set no date to take it up. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. Still open, with no dated movement. - 2026-10-24 · The demand management service rule still sits at the proposal stage on the commission's docket, and its comment window remains shut. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The project's official case style names the subject of the rulemaking. > Large Load Demand Management Service Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=58482&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Ascending ### The commission filed a proposal for publication creating a new rule section. > PROPOSAL FOR PUBLICATION NEW §25.521 Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/documents/?controlNumber=58482&itemNumber=30 ### The Texas Register acknowledgement states the comment deadline. > Texas Register Acknowledgement of Receipt - Comment Deadline 09/04/2026 Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/documents/?controlNumber=58482&itemNumber=31 ### The project ran an earlier round of questions for comment under its own deadline, before the proposal for publication. > Staff Memo and Questions for Comment w/April 8 Deadline Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=58482&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Descending ### A filing in the project carries an objection to incentives in its description. > Large Load Demand Services "Say No to incentives" Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=58482&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Ascending ### A second filing in the project carries an objection to the rule change. > Objection to rule change Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=58482&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Ascending ### CyrusOne, LP is a party to the rulemaking. > CyrusOne, LP Comments in Response to Commission Staff's Qu Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=58482&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Ascending ### The filing index records the number of filings in the project. > 64 filing(s). Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=58482&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Descending ### The rulemaking implements a statutory command in the Utilities Code bearing the same name as the project. > Sec. 39.170. LARGE LOAD DEMAND MANAGEMENT SERVICE. (a) The commission shall require the independent organization certified under Section 39.151 for the ERCOT power region Source (primary_official): https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/UT/htm/UT.39.htm ### The statute sets the size threshold for the large load customers the service must reach. > develop a reliability service to competitively procure demand reductions from large load customers with a demand of at least 75 megawatts to be deployed in the event of an anticipated emergency condition Source (primary_official): https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/UT/htm/UT.39.htm ### The Texas Register acknowledgement on the project sets the comment deadline. > Texas Register Acknowledgement of Receipt - Comment Deadline 09/04/2026 Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=58482&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Descending ### The staff memo that set the comment deadline reached the commission as a numbered open meeting item. > OM Item No. 29 - Staff Memo & PFP w/Sept. 4 Comment Deadline Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=58482&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Descending ### The Office of Public Utility Counsel filed comments on the proposal for publication. > OFFICE OF PUBLIC UTILITY COUNSEL’S COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROPOSAL FOR PUBLICATION OF NEW 16 TAC §25.521 Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=58482&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Descending ### Texas Industrial Energy Consumers filed comments in the project. > TEXAS INDUSTRIAL ENERGY CONSUMERS’ COMMENTS Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=58482&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Descending ### Google filed comments on the proposal for publication. > GOOGLE COMMENTS FOR THE 58482 PROPOSAL FOR PUBLICATION Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=58482&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Descending ### A data center trade association filed a comment on the proposal for publication. > Data Center Coalition's Comment on Proposal for Publication (Project 58482) Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=58482&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Descending ### The grid operator filed comments on the proposal for publication. > ELECTRIC RELIABILITY COUNCIL OF TEXAS, INC.’S COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSAL FOR PUBLICATION Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=58482&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Descending ### An environmental group filed comments on the proposed service. > Sierra Club Comments on proposed LLDMS Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=58482&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Descending ### Oncor filed comments on the proposal for publication. > ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY'S COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSAL FOR PUBLICATION OF NEW 16 TAC § 25.521 Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=58482&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Descending ### A filing was entered under the control number after the comment deadline had passed. > Supplemental Public Comment Clarifying Backup Generation, BESS, and Duplicate Compensation Concerns Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=58482&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Descending --- # PUCT Docket 59315, Oncor application for a 765 kV transmission line across 22 counties Oncor Electric Delivery has applied to amend its certificate of convenience and necessity to build the Dinosaur Switch to Longshore Switch transmission line. The application covers a corridor crossing 22 named counties in central and west Texas. The docket has drawn one of the largest volumes of landowner filings in recent PUCT practice. Those filings include intervention requests, protests and a county resolution. The commission has the docket set for discussion and possible action at its open meeting on August 21st, 2026. That meeting is in a hotel ballroom in Austin rather than in the hearing room. That meeting takes up two Oncor 765 kV applications and nothing else before it closes. The commission issued its order on August 28th, 2026, amending the certificate to include the line and approving route 559. The administrative law judges had found the utility did not fully comply with the public meeting rule for links added after that meeting. The commission read the rule to require only one meeting before the application was filed. The order records the transmission providers projecting an exponential increase in non oil and gas load in the Permian Basin region, named as cryptocurrency mining, data centers and hydrogen electrolysis. - Topic: power-and-the-grid - Decided by: Public Utility Commission of Texas (state-agency) - Where: Borden, Bosque, Brown, Callahan, Coke, Coleman, Comanche, Eastland, Erath, Glasscock, Hamilton, Hood, Howard, Jones, Mitchell, Nolan, Runnels, Shackelford, Somervell, Stephens, Sterling, Taylor - Statistical areas: - Abilene, TX - Big Spring, TX - Brownwood, TX - Granbury, TX - Stephenville, TX - Sweetwater, TX - Waco, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=59315&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Ascending - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-02-02 · filed: Oncor requested a docket number - 2026-08-21 · hearing: Open meeting, agenda item 3, discussion and possible action - 2026-08-28 · decided: Commission order amending the certificate and approving route 559 ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-18 · The filing index moved from 5782 to 5790. The calendar entry for the August 21st open meeting no longer names Docket 59315. That entry now gives the AT&T Hotel and Conference Center rather than Commissioners Hearing Room 7-100. - 2026-08-19 · Checked and unchanged. The filing index stands at 2,000 and the most recent entries are still the intervention requests and protestor comments of March 17th. - 2026-08-20 · The docket is on the August 21st agenda after all. The published agenda for that open meeting names Docket 59315 as item 3, marked for discussion and possible action, and names a second Oncor 765 kV application as item 2. The calendar feed's entry for the meeting names no docket because no feed entry names one. The filing index now reports 5793 filings, and the web view lists only its first page of them, so a count taken from the rows on screen understates the docket. - 2026-08-21 · Checked. The commission's published agenda for the August 21st, 2026 open meeting still names Docket 59315 as item 3 for discussion and possible action. The filing index has moved from 5793 to 5797 since the last check. - 2026-08-26 · The filing index moved from 5797 to 5810, so the docket took new filings over the weekend. The case style is unchanged and the application is still pending before the commission. The landowner protests and the Comanche County resolution are still on the record. - 2026-08-26 · Checked and unchanged. The interchange filing list for Docket 59315 answers and its newest filing is still dated March 17th, 2026. No final order has been entered. - 2026-08-29 · The commission decided this on August 28th, 2026. It amended the certificate to include the line and approved route 559 across the twenty two counties the application named. The administrative law judges had found the utility did not hold a further public meeting for links it added afterwards. The commission approved the line anyway, on a reading that the rule requires only one meeting before filing. - 2026-09-02 · The route application is still the largest file the commission holds on this line and the record shows no change to the approved route. Landowner interventions and protests remain on it. - 2026-09-05 · The commission's filing index for the line has taken further filings since the last reading and the approved route is unchanged. The landowner protests and interventions are still on the docket. - 2026-09-08 · The Dinosaur Switch to Longshore Switch application is still docketed under the same case style and still names the same counties. One more filing has been entered since the record last read the index. - 2026-09-09 · The commission's filing index for the line has taken further filings since the last reading. The approved route is unchanged and the landowner protests and interventions are still on the docket. - 2026-09-12 · The commission's filing index for the line has taken further filings since the last reading. The approved route is unchanged and no party has asked the commission to reopen it. - 2026-09-13 · The approved route for this line is unchanged and the docket is still taking filings. - 2026-09-16 · The docket's own case style still describes the Dinosaur Switch to Longshore Switch line and still names all twenty two counties it would cross. The docket is live and taking filings, and no order disposing of it has appeared. - 2026-09-19 · The line is still approved on the terms the commission set. The docket goes on taking filings after the decision, so every count of them here is true of the day it was read rather than of today. - 2026-09-24 · The commission's order approving the line still stands on its original terms. The docket keeps taking filings after the order, so any count of them belongs to the day it is read. - 2026-09-27 · The commission's order approving the line still stands as issued. Filings keep reaching the docket without reopening it. - 2026-09-30 · The commission's approval of the line still stands as ordered, and the filing that carries it reads the same. - 2026-10-03 · The commission's approval of Oncor's line still stands as ordered, and the docket's filings read as they did. - 2026-10-06 · The commission's order approving Oncor's line and its route still stands. The order itself reads as issued and the docket has not been reopened. - 2026-10-09 · The commission's order approving Oncor's line and its route still reads as issued. The docket shows no rehearing granted. - 2026-10-12 · Oncor's approved line and its route across the counties still stand as the commission ordered. The docket keeps growing with compliance filings and shows no rehearing granted. - 2026-10-15 · Oncor's approved line and route still stand as ordered. The docket keeps adding compliance filings and shows no rehearing. - 2026-10-18 · The commission's order approving Oncor's line and route still stands. The filing index pages gave nothing to compare, so the latest compliance entries are unconfirmed. - 2026-10-21 · The commission's order approving Oncor's line and route still stands. The docket's filing index has grown from 5829 to 5861 entries since it was last counted, all of them filed after the order. - 2026-10-24 · Oncor's application for the 765 kV line across west and central Texas still stands as decided on the commission's docket. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The docket's official case style names the applicant, the project and every county crossed. > APPLICATION OF ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC TO AMEND ITS CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR THE DINOSAUR SWITCH - LONGSHORE SWITCH 765 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT IN BORDEN, BOSQUE, BROWN, CALLAHAN, COKE, COLEMAN, COMANCHE, EASTLAND, ERATH, GLASSCOCK, HAMILTON, HOOD, HOWARD, JONES, MITCHELL, NOLAN, RUNNELS, SHACKELFORD, SOMERVELL, STEPHENS, STERLING, AND TAYLOR COUNTIES Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=59315&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Ascending ### The filing index records the number of filings in the docket. > 5790 filing(s). Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=59315&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Ascending ### A county government filed a resolution into the docket. > Comanche County Resolution Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=59315&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Ascending ### Landowners organised in opposition to a routing option near a state park. > Protest the A3 line going around Dinosaur Valley State Park Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=59315&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Ascending ### A river protection group entered the docket. > Letter Oncor Dinosaur-Longshore 765KV Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=59315&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Ascending ### The PUCT calendar feed's entry for the August 21st open meeting no longer names the docket, and gives an off site address rather than a hearing room. > NA ( Open To Public ) AT&T Hotel and Conference Center (1900 University Ave, Austin, TX 78705) Source (primary_official): https://puc.texas.gov/agency/calendar/GetCalendarRss.aspx ### The commission's published agenda for the August 21st open meeting carries this docket for discussion and possible action. > Application of Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC to Amend Its Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for the Source (primary_official): https://ftp.puc.texas.gov/public/puct-info/agency/om/082126Final.pdf ### The filing index records the number of filings in the docket. > 5793 filing(s). Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=59315&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Descending ### That agenda names the venue for the meeting. > Zlotnik Family Ballroom Source (primary_official): https://ftp.puc.texas.gov/public/puct-info/agency/om/082126Final.pdf ### The filing index records the number of filings in the docket. > 5797 filing(s). Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=59315&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Ascending ### The filing index records the number of filings in the docket. > 5810 filing(s). Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=59315&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Ascending ### The commission granted the certificate amendment and named the route it approved. > The Commission amends Oncor's CCN number 30043 to include the construction and operation of the proposed transmission facilities, including a 765-kV single-circuit transmission line along route 559 Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59315_5819_1678289.PDF ### The administrative law judges found the utility had not fully met the public meeting rule for links it added after that meeting. > The SOAH administrative law judges (ALJs) found that Oncor did not fully comply with the requirements in 16 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) § 22.52(a)(4) because Oncor added and modified links after the public meeting but did not hold any subsequent public meetings or send notice of a public meeting to those landowners within 500 feet of the newly created links. Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59315_5819_1678289.PDF ### The order states the need finding the commission made. > Oncor demonstrated a reasonable need for the proposed transmission facilities. Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59315_5819_1678289.PDF ### The order records what the transmission providers projected the new demand would be. > The TSPs also provided demand projections indicating an exponential increase in non-oil and gas loads in the Permian Basin region, primarily consisting of demand related to cryptocurrency mining operations, data centers, and hydrogen electrolysis facilities. Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59315_5819_1678289.PDF ### The filing index records the number of filings in the docket. > 5824 filing(s). Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=59315&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Ascending ### The filing index records the number of filings in the docket. > 5828 filing(s). Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=59315&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Ascending ### The filing index for the 765 kV line stood at 5829 filings. > 5829 filing(s). Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=59315&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Ascending ### The filing index for the 765 kV line stood at 5861 filings. > 5861 filing(s). Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=59315&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Ascending --- # TRAIGA in force as Business and Commerce Code Chapter 552, enforceable only by the Attorney General The Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act took effect on January 1st, 2026 as Chapter 552 of the Business and Commerce Code. It bans developing or deploying an AI system with intent to unlawfully discriminate, to manipulate behavior, for social scoring or to produce certain illegal content. It also requires government agencies to tell people when they are interacting with an AI system. The Attorney General has exclusive enforcement authority and the statute creates no private right of action. - Topic: state-policy - Decided by: Office of the Attorney General of Texas (state-agency) - Where: Statewide - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2025-06-22 · signed: HB 149 signed by the Governor - 2026-01-01 · effective: Chapter 552 took effect ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-18 · Checked and unchanged. Chapter 552 stands in force with enforcement resting solely with the Attorney General. - 2026-08-21 · Checked and unchanged. Chapter 552 stands in force, enforcement still rests solely with the Attorney General, and the rebuttable presumption of reasonable care still stands. - 2026-08-25 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-08-28 · Checked and unchanged. Chapter 552 is still in force and the Attorney General is still the only office that may enforce it. A Texan who believes an AI system broke this law still has no private suit to bring. - 2026-09-01 · The Attorney General remains the statute's sole enforcer, and the law still creates no private right to sue. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-05 · The artificial intelligence statute is still in the Business and Commerce Code and the Attorney General is still the only office that may enforce it. No private right of action has appeared. - 2026-09-08 · TRAIGA still sits in the Business and Commerce Code as written, and enforcement still belongs to the Attorney General alone. No private right of action has appeared in the chapter. - 2026-09-09 · TRAIGA is still on the books as Chapter 552 of the Business and Commerce Code, and the Attorney General is still the only office that may enforce it. No private right of action has appeared. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-16 · Chapter 552 is still in force in the form it took effect, and enforcement still runs through the Attorney General alone. No other body has acquired a way to bring an action under it. - 2026-09-19 · The Act is still in force as the chapter it was codified into, and the Attorney General is still the only person who can bring a case under it. - 2026-09-23 · The act is still on the books as written, and enforcement still belongs to the attorney general alone. - 2026-09-26 · The act still stands as codified, and the attorney general is still the only party that can enforce it. - 2026-09-29 · The act reads as codified, and a person harmed under it still has no private right to sue. Enforcement rests with the attorney general alone. - 2026-10-02 · The act still reads as codified in Chapter 552, and the attorney general is still the only party who can enforce it. - 2026-10-05 · TRAIGA still stands as Chapter 552 of the Business and Commerce Code, and the Attorney General is still the only one who can enforce it. - 2026-10-08 · TRAIGA reads as it did when it was enacted, and enforcement still rests with the Attorney General alone. - 2026-10-11 · TRAIGA still reads as enacted. Only the Attorney General can enforce it. - 2026-10-15 · TRAIGA reads as enacted in the Business and Commerce Code, with the Attorney General still its only enforcer. - 2026-10-18 · TRAIGA still reads in the Business and Commerce Code as enacted. The Attorney General remains the only office that can enforce it. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · The statute still reads as enacted. Enforcement of the Texas Responsible AI Governance Act stays with the Attorney General alone. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The chapter was created by HB 149 and took effect January 1st, 2026. > Added by Acts 2025, 89th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1174 (H.B. 149 ), Sec. 4, eff. January 1, 2026. Source (primary_official): https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/BC/htm/BC.552.htm ### The Attorney General has exclusive enforcement authority and there is no private right of action. > (a) The attorney general has exclusive authority to enforce this chapter, except to the extent provided by Section 552.106 . (b) This chapter does not provide a basis for, and is not subject to, a private right of action for a violation of this chapter or any other law. Source (primary_official): https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/BC/htm/BC.552.htm ### The statute sets tiered civil penalties by violation type. > (1) for each violation the court determines to be curable or a breach of a statement submitted to the attorney general under Section 552.104 (b)(2), not less than $10,000 and not more than $12,000; (2) for each violation the court determines to be uncurable, not less than $80,000 and not more than $200,000; and (3) for a continued violation, not less than $2,000 and not more than $40,000 for each day the violation continues. Source (primary_official): https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/BC/htm/BC.552.htm ### The discrimination ban turns on intent, and disparate impact alone is not enough to show it. > (b) A person may not develop or deploy an artificial intelligence system with the intent to unlawfully discriminate against a protected class in violation of state or federal law. (c) For purposes of this section, a disparate impact is not sufficient by itself to demonstrate an intent to discriminate. Source (primary_official): https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/BC/htm/BC.552.htm ### Government agencies must disclose AI interaction even when it would be obvious. > (c) A person is required to make the disclosure under Subsection (b) regardless of whether it would be obvious to a reasonable consumer that the consumer is interacting with an artificial intelligence system. Source (primary_official): https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/BC/htm/BC.552.htm ### There is a rebuttable presumption that a person used reasonable care. > (c) There is a rebuttable presumption that a person used reasonable care as required under this chapter. Source (primary_official): https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/BC/htm/BC.552.htm ### The chapter requires the Attorney General to run an online complaint mechanism. > The attorney general shall create and maintain an online mechanism on the attorney general's Internet website through which a consumer may submit a complaint under this chapter to the attorney general. Source (primary_official): https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/BC/htm/BC.552.htm --- # Utilities Code limits how the PUCT may direct ERCOT, and bars verbal directives Texas law restricts the channels through which the Public Utility Commission may order ERCOT to act. A verbal directive is prohibited outright. An official action may be directed only by contested case, by rulemaking or by a written order or memorandum adopted on a majority vote. The ERCOT board selection committee picks ERCOT's directors and designates its chair. The governor does not. - Topic: power-and-the-grid - Decided by: Texas Legislature (legislature) - Where: Statewide - Status: decided - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://puc.texas.gov/agency/calendar/GetCalendarRss.aspx - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2021-06-08 · effective: SB 2 (87R) added the board selection committee ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-18 · Checked and unchanged. The statute still bars a verbal directive and still limits an official action to a contested case, a rulemaking or a written order. - 2026-08-21 · Checked and unchanged. The statute still bars a verbal directive and still limits an official action to a contested case, a rulemaking or a written order. It is state law binding a statewide agency, so its reach is the whole state rather than a list of counties, and the record now says so. - 2026-08-25 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-08-28 · Checked and unchanged. The prohibition on a verbal directive still stands. The commission may still reach ERCOT only through a contested case, a rulemaking or a written order adopted on a majority vote. - 2026-09-01 · The written-order and majority-vote limits on commission directions to ERCOT remain in the Utilities Code. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-05 · The Utilities Code still holds the commission to written direction of the grid operator. The bar on verbal directives is unchanged. - 2026-09-08 · The Utilities Code still holds the commission to written direction of the grid operator, and the bar on verbal directives is unchanged. - 2026-09-09 · The Utilities Code still holds the commission to written direction of the grid operator. The bar on verbal directives is unchanged. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-16 · The limit on how the commission may direct the grid operator still reads as it did, and the bar on a verbal directive is intact. Nothing has been added to let an instruction travel any other way. - 2026-09-19 · The limit on how the commission may direct the grid operator is unchanged, and a verbal directive is still barred. - 2026-09-23 · The limit on how the commission may direct the grid operator is unchanged, and the bar on verbal directives still stands. - 2026-09-26 · The statute still limits how the commission may direct the grid operator, and a verbal directive is still barred. - 2026-09-29 · The Utilities Code still bars the commission from directing the grid operator by word of mouth, and the limits on how it may direct it are unchanged. - 2026-10-02 · The commission is still barred from directing the grid operator by verbal directive, and the statute's other limits on its directions read as before. - 2026-10-05 · The Utilities Code still limits how the commission may direct ERCOT and still bars a directive given only by word of mouth. - 2026-10-08 · The statute on how the commission may direct ERCOT reads as before, including its bar on directives given only out loud. - 2026-10-11 · The statute governing how the commission directs ERCOT is unchanged. Directives still have to be written down. - 2026-10-15 · The Utilities Code still requires the commission's directions to ERCOT in writing. No amendment has touched that section. - 2026-10-18 · The section limiting how the commission directs ERCOT reads as before. A direction still has to be in writing. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · The Utilities Code text is unchanged. Commission direction to the grid operator still has to be written rather than spoken. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The commission may not verbally direct ERCOT and may direct official action only three ways. > (a) The commission may not use a verbal directive to direct an independent organization certified under Section 39.151 to take an official action. The commission may direct the organization to take an official action only through: (1) a contested case; (2) rulemaking; or (3) a memorandum or written order adopted by a majority vote. Source (primary_official): https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/UT/htm/UT.39.htm ### The ERCOT board selection committee is three members, one each appointed by the governor, lieutenant governor and speaker. > (a) The ERCOT board selection committee is composed of: (1) one member appointed by the governor; (2) one member appointed by the lieutenant governor; and (3) one member appointed by the speaker of the house of representatives. Source (primary_official): https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/UT/htm/UT.39.htm ### That committee selects ERCOT's governing body and designates its chair and vice chair. > (d) The committee shall select members eligible under Section 39.151 to serve on the governing body of an independent organization certified under that section for the ERCOT power region and shall designate the chair and vice chair of the governing body from those members. Source (primary_official): https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/UT/htm/UT.39.htm --- # Texas Government Code Chapter 2054 carries three conflicting Subchapter S's on AI, with duplicated section numbers Three separate acts of the 89th Legislature each added a Subchapter S to Government Code Chapter 2054, and two of them number their sections identically. Section 2054.702 exists twice with entirely different commands, as do Sections 2054.701 and 2054.703 through 2054.705. The codifier has flagged the conflict in the published code rather than resolved it. Which text governs a state agency's AI duties is unsettled on the face of the statute. - Topic: state-policy - Decided by: Texas Legislature (legislature) - Where: Statewide - Status: open - Public access: Write to the decider - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2025-09-01 · effective: Both conflicting AI subchapters took effect ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-19 · Which Subchapter S governs remains unconfirmed. The published chapter text available this run runs only as far as Section 2054.0702. That stops short of the three Subchapter S enactments the item rests on. - 2026-08-22 · The three Subchapter S enactments are confirmed in the published chapter text. One runs Sections 2054.651 to 2054.654 on website modernization. Two more both begin at Section 2054.701, one creating an artificial intelligence division and one setting artificial intelligence duties. The codifier still flags the conflict rather than resolving it. - 2026-08-25 · Checked and unchanged. Still open, with no dated movement. - 2026-08-28 · Checked and unchanged. The codifier's conflict note is still sitting in the published text and the Legislature has not met to resolve it. A state agency reading its own AI duties still has three Subchapter S's to choose between. - 2026-09-01 · The published code still carries the conflicting artificial-intelligence subchapters and their duplicated section designations. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. Still open, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-05 · The three Subchapter S's are still in the Government Code with their section numbers still colliding. Nothing has been renumbered and a reader looking up the AI duties still meets more than one answer. - 2026-09-08 · Chapter 2054 still carries its three competing Subchapter S designations, and the duplicated section numbers are still in the published code. Nothing has been renumbered. - 2026-09-09 · Three separate Subchapter S's on artificial intelligence still sit in Chapter 2054 with overlapping numbering, and nothing has been passed to reconcile them. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. Still open, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. Still open, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-16 · The three Subchapter S sections on artificial intelligence still sit in the code with their duplicated numbering unresolved. A reader looking up a section number still gets more than one answer. - 2026-09-19 · The three conflicting subchapters are all still on the books with their section numbers still duplicated, so the code still gives two answers to the same question. - 2026-09-23 · The code still carries the same three subchapters under one letter, and none of the duplicated section numbers has been renumbered. - 2026-09-26 · Chapter 2054 still carries three subchapters under one letter, with the duplicated section numbers left as they were. - 2026-09-29 · The code still carries its three subchapters on artificial intelligence under one letter. No cleanup bill has renumbered them. - 2026-10-02 · All three Subchapter S's on artificial intelligence are still in Chapter 2054, still sharing one letter and still unrenumbered. - 2026-10-05 · Chapter 2054 still carries its three Subchapter S's on AI, with the duplicated section numbers no later session has reconciled. - 2026-10-08 · The duplicated AI subchapters in the Government Code are still unreconciled, and no later act has renumbered them. - 2026-10-11 · The Government Code still carries the overlapping AI subchapters. No later act has sorted out their numbering. - 2026-10-15 · The Government Code still carries the three AI subchapters under the same letter. Nothing has renumbered them. - 2026-10-18 · The three AI subchapters in the Government Code still share one letter and repeat section numbers. No cleanup bill has changed that. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. Still open, with no dated movement. - 2026-10-24 · The Government Code still carries the three conflicting subchapters on AI with their duplicated section numbers. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The published code carries an editorial note recording three separate Subchapter S enactments. > Subchapter S, consisting of Secs. 2054.701 to 2054.713, was added by Acts 2025, 89th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1148 (S.B. 1964 ), Sec. 5. For another Subchapter S, consisting of Secs. 2054.651 to 2054.654, added by Acts 2025, 89th Leg., R.S., Ch. 951 (H.B. 5195 ), Sec. 1, see Sec. 2054.651 et seq., post. For another Subchapter S, consisting of Secs. 2054.701 to 2054.705, added by Acts 2025, 89th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1079 (H.B. 2818 ), Sec. 1, see Sec. 2054.701 et seq., post. Source (primary_official): https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/GV/htm/GV.2054.htm ### One version of Section 2054.702 concerns generative AI technology. > Sec. 2054.702. GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TECHNOLOGY. Source (primary_official): https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/GV/htm/GV.2054.htm ### The other version of Section 2054.702 requires a statewide AI code of ethics. > Sec. 2054.702. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE SYSTEM CODE OF ETHICS. (a) The department by rule shall establish an artificial intelligence system code of ethics for use by state agencies and local governments that procure, develop, deploy, or use artificial intelligence systems. Source (primary_official): https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/GV/htm/GV.2054.htm ### That code of ethics must align with a named federal framework. > the artificial intelligence system code of ethics must include guidance for the deployment and use of artificial intelligence systems and heightened scrutiny artificial intelligence systems that aligns with the Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0) published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Source (primary_official): https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/GV/htm/GV.2054.htm ### Local governments as well as state agencies must adopt the code of ethics. > (c) State agencies and local governments shall adopt the code of ethics developed under this section. Source (primary_official): https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/GV/htm/GV.2054.htm --- # DIR must run an AI regulatory sandbox letting state agencies test systems outside normal rules The Department of Information Resources is required to establish a program letting eligible public entities contract with registered vendors to test AI systems before deployment. That testing is expressly without full compliance with otherwise applicable regulations. Vendors apply, and participants file quarterly reports. The department must report to the Legislature by November 30th of each even numbered year. That makes November 30th, 2026 the first reporting date. - Topic: state-policy - Decided by: Texas Department of Information Resources (state-agency) - Where: Statewide - Status: pending - Public access: Write to the decider - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2025-09-01 · effective: SB 1964 took effect - 2026-11-30 · statutory deadline: Department report to the Legislature due, per Sec. 2054.706(g) ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-18 · Checked and unchanged. The sandbox program stands required of the Department of Information Resources and the report to the Legislature is still due November 30th, 2026. - 2026-08-21 · Checked and unchanged. The sandbox program stands required of the Department of Information Resources and the report to the Legislature is still due November 30th, 2026. - 2026-08-25 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-08-28 · Checked and unchanged. The Department of Information Resources has published nothing establishing the sandbox, and no vendor register has appeared. The report the statute requires is still ahead of the department. - 2026-09-01 · The statutory sandbox duty remains pending, with no published DIR program launch in the record. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-05 · The statute still places the sandbox duty on the state technology agency and still sets the reporting date it has to answer by. Whether the agency has opened one is unconfirmed. - 2026-09-08 · The state technology agency's AI regulatory sandbox is still a statutory instruction without a published program behind it. No agency has been named as taking part. - 2026-09-09 · The regulatory sandbox letting state agencies test AI systems outside the ordinary rules is still a duty on the state technology agency. It still has no published program behind it. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-16 · The sandbox the state technology agency owes is still owed. No rule, no application form and no participating agency has appeared to show it running. - 2026-09-19 · The sandbox the agency is required to run has not opened, so no state agency is yet testing a system outside the ordinary rules. - 2026-09-23 · The sandbox is still a duty the statute assigns and not a program with a door on it. - 2026-09-26 · The sandbox is still a duty written into the statute. No program has opened that an agency could apply to. - 2026-09-29 · The regulatory sandbox for state agencies exists only as a statutory duty. The technology agency has not opened an application an agency could file. - 2026-10-02 · The sandbox is still a duty written into statute. The technology agency has not opened a way for a state agency to apply. - 2026-10-05 · The statute still requires the Department of Information Resources to run an AI regulatory sandbox for state agencies. - 2026-10-08 · The Department of Information Resources is still under the statute's instruction to run a regulatory sandbox for state agencies. - 2026-10-11 · The law still tells the Department of Information Resources to run an AI sandbox for state agencies. - 2026-10-15 · The statute still assigns the AI sandbox for state agencies to the Department of Information Resources. - 2026-10-18 · The sandbox duty still sits with the Department of Information Resources in the statute's text. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-10-24 · The sandbox duty still sits with the state technology agency in statute, worded as before. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The sandbox is defined as testing without full regulatory compliance. > "Program" means the program established by this section that is designed to allow temporary testing of an artificial intelligence system in a controlled, limited manner without requiring full compliance with otherwise applicable regulations. Source (primary_official): https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/GV/htm/GV.2054.htm ### The department must establish and administer the program. > (b) The department shall establish and administer a program to support eligible entities in contracting with vendors to engage in research, development, training, testing, and other pre-deployment activities related to artificial intelligence systems Source (primary_official): https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/GV/htm/GV.2054.htm ### Vendor applications must include a public risk assessment and a mitigation plan. > (2) a risk assessment of the system that addresses potential impacts on the public; and (3) a plan for mitigating any adverse consequences discovered during the system's testing phase. Source (primary_official): https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/GV/htm/GV.2054.htm ### The department owes the Legislature a report on a fixed recurring date. > (g) Not later than November 30 of each even-numbered year, the department shall produce an annual report and submit the report to the legislature summarizing: Source (primary_official): https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/GV/htm/GV.2054.htm ### The sandbox was created by SB 1964, effective September 1st, 2025. > Added by Acts 2025, 89th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1148 (S.B. 1964 ), Sec. 5, eff. September 1, 2025. Source (primary_official): https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/GV/htm/GV.2054.htm --- # TRAIGA preempts city and county regulation of artificial intelligence Chapter 552 of the Business and Commerce Code supersedes and preempts any local ordinance, resolution, rule or regulation about the use of AI systems. Texas cities and counties that might otherwise write their own AI rules are displaced by the state statute. The preemption is written broadly and without a carve out on its face. - Topic: state-policy - Decided by: Texas Legislature (legislature) - Where: Statewide - Status: decided - Public access: Closed - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-01-01 · effective: Chapter 552 took effect, including the preemption section ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-18 · Checked and unchanged. Chapter 552 still supersedes any local ordinance or rule about the use of AI systems. - 2026-08-21 · Checked and unchanged. Chapter 552 still supersedes any ordinance, resolution, rule or other regulation a political subdivision adopts about the use of artificial intelligence systems. - 2026-08-25 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-08-28 · Checked and unchanged. The preemption clause still displaces any city or county rule on AI use, and nothing on its face has been carved back. A local ordinance written today would still be superseded. - 2026-09-01 · The state-law preemption of city and county rules governing artificial-intelligence use remains in force. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-05 · State law still takes AI regulation away from cities and counties. No local ordinance has tested the preemption in court. - 2026-09-08 · Cities and counties still may not write their own artificial intelligence rules. The preemption stands where the Legislature put it. - 2026-09-09 · Cities and counties still can't write their own artificial intelligence rules. The state preemption stands as enacted. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-16 · The preemption still stands. A Texas city or county still has no room of its own to regulate artificial intelligence, and nothing has carved one back out. - 2026-09-19 · Cities and counties are still preempted from regulating artificial intelligence, which is why the local measures on this subject are resolutions and zoning rather than rules about the technology. - 2026-09-23 · Preemption still holds, so a city or county that wants to regulate artificial intelligence still has nowhere to do it. - 2026-09-26 · The preemption clause still stands, so a city or county still has no room to write its own rules on artificial intelligence. - 2026-09-29 · The preemption clause reads as it did, and it still leaves cities and counties no ordinance of their own on artificial intelligence. - 2026-10-02 · The preemption clause still keeps cities and counties from writing their own rules on artificial intelligence. - 2026-10-05 · TRAIGA's bar on cities and counties writing their own AI rules still reads as enacted. - 2026-10-08 · The state law that keeps cities and counties from writing their own AI rules is unchanged. - 2026-10-11 · Cities and counties are still barred from writing their own AI rules under the state law. - 2026-10-15 · The state law still keeps cities and counties from writing AI rules of their own. - 2026-10-18 · The preemption language is unchanged. Cities and counties still can't write AI rules of their own. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · The preemption clause still reads as enacted, so cities and counties still have no room to write their own AI rules. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The chapter preempts local regulation of AI use. > Sec. 552.003. LOCAL PREEMPTION. This chapter supersedes and preempts any ordinance, resolution, rule, or other regulation adopted by a political subdivision regarding the use of artificial intelligence systems. Source (primary_official): https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/BC/htm/BC.552.htm --- # Comptroller's JETI current agreements list contains no data center project The Texas Jobs, Energy, Technology and Innovation Act is the state's school district property tax incentive program. The Comptroller publishes the current executed agreements. Every project type on that list is manufacturing, power generation or extraction. No agreement on the published list is a data center. - Topic: data-centers - Decided by: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts (state-agency) - Where: Statewide - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://comptroller.texas.gov/economy/development/prop-tax/jeti/current-agreements.php - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-18 · Checked and unchanged. The Comptroller's current JETI agreements list still names no data center project. - 2026-08-21 · Checked and unchanged. The Comptroller's current JETI agreements list still names no data center project, and no entry on it is a data center, a semiconductor plant or a battery plant. - 2026-08-26 · Checked and unchanged in substance. The comptroller's current agreements table still lists no data center among its project types. Those run to jet fuel and aircraft parts at one end and to semiconductors at the other. The table has been reformatted since it was first quoted here and the quote is corrected to the wording it carries now. - 2026-08-29 · Checked and unchanged. The Comptroller's published list of executed agreements still contains no data center. Every project type on it is still manufacturing, power generation or extraction. - 2026-09-01 · Data centers remain absent from the Comptroller's published list of executed JETI agreements. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-05 · The Comptroller's list of current school district tax agreements still carries no data center. The absence is unchanged. - 2026-09-08 · The Comptroller's list of current JETI agreements still names no data center project. The absence is the finding and it has not changed. - 2026-09-09 · The comptroller's list of live JETI agreements still names no data center. What that list leaves out is the finding, and it has not changed. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-16 · The Comptroller's list of executed agreements still names no data center. Whatever is being negotiated, none of it has reached the page where a finished agreement appears. - 2026-09-19 · The comptroller's list of current agreements still carries no data center project, so no such project is yet taking the school tax limitation. - 2026-09-23 · The comptroller's list of executed agreements still carries no data center among them. - 2026-09-26 · No data center appears on the comptroller's list of executed agreements, which is the same answer the list gave before. - 2026-09-29 · The comptroller's list of current JETI agreements still names no data center project. - 2026-10-02 · No data center project has joined the comptroller's list of current JETI agreements. - 2026-10-05 · The comptroller's list of current JETI agreements still names no data center project. - 2026-10-08 · The comptroller's list of JETI agreements still carries no data center. - 2026-10-11 · No data center has appeared on the comptroller's list of JETI agreements. - 2026-10-15 · The comptroller's list of current JETI agreements still names no data center project. - 2026-10-18 · The comptroller's current JETI list still holds no data center project. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · The Comptroller's list of current JETI agreements still names no data center project. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The published table's project type column lists only non data center categories. > J0001 Summit Next Gen, LLC Galena Park ISD Jet Fuel Manufacturing $1.7 billion 50% 75 J0002 Bell Textron, Inc. Northwest ISD Aircraft Parts Manufacturing $429 million 50% 75 J0004 Vinton Steel LLC Canutillo ISD All Other Miscellaneous Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing $230 million 50% 75 Source (primary_official): https://comptroller.texas.gov/economy/development/prop-tax/jeti/current-agreements.php ### The table's column headings show what the published record does and does not disclose. > Application # Applicant School District Project Type Proposed Investment Limitation Percentage Minimum Required Jobs Source (primary_official): https://comptroller.texas.gov/economy/development/prop-tax/jeti/current-agreements.php --- # Federal comment window has closed on NRC reactor licensing and siting modernization The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has proposed a wholesale revision of its reactor licensing, safety oversight and siting rules. The revision is being carried out under an executive order directing reform of the agency. Comments close August 31st, 2026. Siting rules bear directly on the new nuclear generation being proposed to serve large electrical loads in Texas. - Topic: defense-and-federal - Decided by: United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (federal) - Where: Statewide - Status: pending - Public access: Comment window open - Comment closes: 2026-08-31 - Take part: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/07/16/2026-14341/modernizing-reactor-licensing-safety-oversight-and-siting-practices - Last checked: 2026-10-23 ## Dates - 2026-07-16 · comment opens: Proposed rule published in the Federal Register - 2026-07-27 · filed: Correction to the proposed rule published in the Federal Register - 2026-08-31 · comment closes: Comment period closes ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-19 · The comment window is still open and still closes August 31st. A correction to the proposed rule was published on July 27th. - 2026-08-22 · Checked and unchanged. The published comment due date is still August 31st, 2026. The docket now carries agency responses to two separate requests to extend the comment period, and the due date has not moved. - 2026-08-26 · Checked and unchanged. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's proposed rule still carries the Executive Order 14300 framing and the comment window still closes August 31st. Five days are left on it. - 2026-08-27 · Checked and unchanged. The proposed rule still opens on the Executive Order 14300 framing and the comment window still closes August 31st. Four days are left to file. - 2026-08-28 · Checked and unchanged. The proposed rule still opens on the Executive Order 14300 framing and the Federal Register still gives August 31st, 2026 as the day comments close. Three days are left to file under docket NRC-2025-0975. - 2026-08-29 · The comment window is still open, closing August 31st. The proposal to revise the reactor licensing, oversight and siting rules is unchanged, and the docket still takes comment from anyone. - 2026-08-30 · The federal window is nearly shut. Comments on the reactor licensing and siting rewrite close August 31st, which leaves a single day to file. - 2026-09-02 · The comment window has closed. The proposed rule on reactor licensing, safety oversight and siting stays before the agency and no final rule has been published. - 2026-09-05 · The federal notice still carries its stated close and the Commission has published no next step. What it does with the comments it took is still unconfirmed. - 2026-09-08 · The federal comment window on reactor licensing and siting modernization is still shut, and the notice still reads as it did when it closed. No adopting action has been published since. - 2026-09-09 · The federal comment window on reactor licensing and siting modernization is still shut, and the notice that closed it reads as it did. - 2026-09-12 · The federal comment window on reactor licensing and siting modernization is still shut. The notice that closed it carries the same closing date it did. - 2026-09-13 · The federal window on reactor licensing and siting is still shut, and the notice's own close date has not moved. - 2026-09-16 · The federal comment window on reactor licensing and siting is still shut and the proposal is still where the closing left it. No final rule has been published. - 2026-09-19 · The comment window is still shut and the agency has published no next step out of it. - 2026-09-24 · The comment window remains closed. The proposal still reads as the record took it and no next step has been published out of it. - 2026-09-27 · The comment window stays closed. The proposal still reads as published and the commission has put out no next step from it. - 2026-09-30 · The comment window is still closed. The proposal still reads as published in the register, and no final rule has followed. - 2026-10-03 · The comment window is still closed and the proposal still reads as published in the register. No final rule has followed. - 2026-10-06 · The reactor licensing proposal still reads as the register published it. Its comment window stays closed and no final rule has appeared. - 2026-10-09 · The reactor licensing proposal still reads as the register printed it. Comment stays closed and no final rule has followed. - 2026-10-12 · The reactor licensing proposal stays as the register printed it. Comment remains closed and no final rule has appeared. - 2026-10-15 · The reactor licensing proposal remains closed to comment. The register's full text is unconfirmed, since its reader routes to a path the register bars. - 2026-10-20 · The register's record still gives August 31st as the close of comment on the reactor licensing proposal. The full text stays unconfirmed. - 2026-10-23 · The register's record still closes comment on the reactor licensing proposal on August 31st, and no final rule has followed. The full text stays unconfirmed, since its reader routes to a path the register bars. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The NRC is revising its reactor licensing, oversight and siting rules under an executive order. > Consistent with Executive Order 14300, "Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission," the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is conducting a review and wholesale revision of its regulations. This proposed rule aims to modernize reactor licensing, safety oversight, and siting practices Source (primary_official): https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/07/16/2026-14341/modernizing-reactor-licensing-safety-oversight-and-siting-practices ### The Federal Register API records the date the comment window closes. > "comments_close_on":"2026-08-31" Source (primary_official): https://www.federalregister.gov/api/v1/documents/2026-14341.json ### The federal register record gives the date comments closed. > 2026-08-31 Source (primary_official): https://www.federalregister.gov/api/v1/documents/2026-14341.json --- # Federal comment window has closed on adding AI questions to the American Time Use Survey The Bureau of Labor Statistics proposed adding questions about artificial intelligence to the American Time Use Survey and took public comment on it under the Paperwork Reduction Act. That window closed September 8th, 2026, and no decision on whether the questions go into the survey has been published. The survey is a main federal instrument for measuring how people actually spend working time, so what it asks about AI shapes what is later knowable. - Topic: research-and-science - Decided by: United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (federal) - Where: Statewide - Status: pending - Public access: Comment window open - Comment closes: 2026-09-08 - Take part: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/07/10/2026-13928/proposed-information-collection-atus-artificial-intelligence-ai-questions - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-07-10 · comment opens: Notice published in the Federal Register - 2026-09-08 · comment closes: Comment period closes ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-19 · Checked and unchanged. The comment window still closes September 8th. - 2026-08-22 · Checked and unchanged. Written comments are still due on or before September 8th, 2026, and the notice still says comments are being accepted. - 2026-08-26 · Checked and unchanged. The Bureau of Labor Statistics notice on adding artificial intelligence questions to the American Time Use Survey still stands and its comment window still closes September 8th. - 2026-08-29 · The comment window is still open, closing September 8th. The proposal to add artificial intelligence questions to the time use survey is unchanged. - 2026-09-02 · The comment window on adding artificial intelligence questions to the American Time Use Survey is still open and the closing date has not moved. - 2026-09-03 · The comment window on adding artificial intelligence questions to the American Time Use Survey is still open and still closes September 8th, 2026. The notice stands as published and the closing date has not moved. Five days are left to file. - 2026-09-04 · Four days left. The Bureau of Labor Statistics notice proposing artificial intelligence questions for the American Time Use Survey stands as published, and the window still shuts on September 8th, 2026. The wording of the pre-clearance consultation the notice opens is unchanged from the day it published. - 2026-09-05 · The Labor Department's notice still stands and the comment door has not shut. A reader can still file on the survey's AI questions. - 2026-09-07 · The window closes tomorrow, September 8th, 2026. The notice still stands as published and the Federal Register still marks the docket as taking comments. A Texan who wants a say in whether the national time use survey starts asking about AI has one day to file. - 2026-09-08 · The federal notice proposing AI questions on the American Time Use Survey is still posted and still taking comment. Everything the notice says about how to file is unchanged. - 2026-09-11 · The comment window closed on September 8th, 2026. The record had carried the window as open and the notice's own close date has now passed. What a reader can do here has changed from filing a comment to reading the notice. The bureau has published no decision on whether the questions go into the survey. - 2026-09-13 · The window on adding artificial intelligence questions to the time use survey is still closed, and the notice still carries the same close date. - 2026-09-16 · The comment window on adding artificial intelligence questions to the time use survey is still closed, and the proposal still stands as proposed. Nothing has been published to say what the bureau will do with it. - 2026-09-19 · Still shut, and the survey office has announced no decision on whether the questions about artificial intelligence go into the survey. - 2026-09-24 · The survey's comment window is still closed. The notice proposing questions about artificial intelligence still reads as the record took it. - 2026-09-27 · The survey's comment window stays closed. The notice proposing questions about artificial intelligence still reads as published, with no final version out. - 2026-09-30 · The comment window is still closed. The notice proposing questions about artificial intelligence still reads as published, and no final version is out. - 2026-10-03 · The comment window is still closed. The notice proposing AI questions for the time use survey still reads as published, with no final version out. - 2026-10-06 · The proposal to add AI questions to the time use survey still reads as the register published it, with comment closed and no final version issued. - 2026-10-09 · The proposal to add AI questions to the time use survey still reads as published, with comment closed and no final version issued. - 2026-10-12 · The plan to add AI questions to the time use survey still reads as proposed. Comment is closed and no final version has been issued. - 2026-10-15 · The time use survey proposal remains closed to comment. The register's page refused the request, so its wording is unconfirmed. - 2026-10-18 · The Federal Register's own record of the time use survey proposal still shows its comment window closed. The abstract page is unconfirmed, since that site now turns automated readers away. - 2026-10-21 · The comment window closed on September 8th. - 2026-10-24 · The comment window on adding AI questions to the American Time Use Survey closed on September 8th, and the notice still reads as published. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The notice is a Paperwork Reduction Act consultation inviting public comment. > The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Source (primary_official): https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/07/10/2026-13928/proposed-information-collection-atus-artificial-intelligence-ai-questions ### The Federal Register API records the date the comment window closes. > "comments_close_on":"2026-09-08" Source (primary_official): https://www.federalregister.gov/api/v1/documents/2026-13928.json --- # PUCT open meeting calendar published as a live feed through mid 2027 The Public Utility Commission publishes its open meetings and public comment deadlines as a machine readable feed. Every entry is marked open to the public and names the room. The schedule runs into 2027, so a reader can see in advance when the commission will sit. The listings move as the calendar firms up, and an entry comes off the feed once its date has passed. The September meetings, the September 17th deadline for Project 59550 and the grid operator's own board meetings have all come off it since the record last read the feed. The next open meeting the public may attend is Thursday, October 15th, 2026 in the commissioners hearing room, and Project 59086's comment deadline falls the same day. The feed also carries a workshop on November 16th, 2026 that is held online. No feed entry names a docket number, so the agenda published for each meeting is where a reader finds out what will be taken up. - Topic: power-and-the-grid - Decided by: Public Utility Commission of Texas (state-agency) - Where: Statewide - Status: open - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://puc.texas.gov/agency/calendar/GetCalendarRss.aspx - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-08-20 · hearing: Open meeting in Commissioners Hearing Room 7-100 - 2026-08-21 · hearing: Open meeting listed at an off site hotel and conference center - 2026-09-04 · comment closes: Public comment deadline for Project 58482 - 2026-09-11 · hearing: Open meeting in Commissioners Hearing Room 7-100, per the calendar feed - 2026-09-17 · comment closes: Public comment deadline for Project 59550 - 2026-09-18 · hearing: Open meeting in Commissioners Hearing Room 7-100, per the calendar feed - 2026-10-15 · comment closes: Public comment deadline for Project 59086 - 2026-10-15 · hearing: Open meeting in Commissioners Hearing Room 7-100, per the calendar feed - 2026-11-16 · hearing: Workshop held online, per the calendar feed ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-16 · The August 21st entry no longer names Docket 59315 and no longer lists Commissioners Hearing Room 7-100. It now gives the AT&T Hotel and Conference Center. An open meeting on August 20th has been added. Checked against the PUCT calendar feed. - 2026-08-19 · Checked and unchanged. The feed still publishes 32 entries. The August 20th and August 21st open meetings both still stand, and the September 4th public comment deadline for Project 58482 is still listed. - 2026-08-20 · Checked. The feed now publishes 31 entries and runs to July 29th, 2027, one fewer than at the last check. The August 20th and August 21st open meetings both still stand and the September 4th public comment deadline for Project 58482 is still listed. Project 58482 is the Large Load Demand Management Service, and the agenda for each meeting names the dockets that a feed entry does not. - 2026-08-21 · Checked and unchanged. The feed still runs through July 29th, 2027 and the September 4th public comment deadline for Project 58482 is still listed. The August 21st open meeting still stands at the off site hotel and conference center. - 2026-08-26 · The August 20th open meeting has come off the feed, which is what the feed does once a meeting is held. The August 28th open meeting is now the next one listed and it names the Stephen F. Austin Building rather than the commission hearing room. The one public comment deadline the feed carries is still Project 58482 on September 4th. - 2026-08-26 · Checked and unchanged. The agency calendar feed answers and carries 31 dated entries. They run from August 20th, 2026 to July 29th, 2027, so the live feed through mid 2027 still holds. - 2026-08-28 · The feed moved twice. A second public comment deadline has appeared, for Project 59550 on September 17th, 2026, so the record no longer says the feed carries only one. The August 20th and August 21st open meetings have come off the feed now that they have been held. The August 28th meeting the feed leads with sits at the Stephen F. Austin Building. - 2026-08-29 · Checked and unchanged. The calendar feed still publishes open meetings, workshops and comment deadlines, and it still runs into the middle of 2027. It still names the project a comment deadline belongs to, which is the part a reader can act on. - 2026-08-30 · The calendar feed is still publishing. It still carries the open meeting of August 28th and a public comment deadline of September 17th. - 2026-09-02 · The commission's meeting calendar still runs past the end of this year and the open meeting schedule is unchanged. - 2026-09-03 · The feed has advanced. The August 28th open meeting has been held and has come off it. The next open meeting listed is Friday, September 11th, 2026, back in the commissioners hearing room rather than the off site building. Both public comment deadlines are still there, September 4th and September 17th, and the feed now also carries a workshop on September 22nd. Four claims here quoted the strings a meeting leaves behind when it is held. That is the feed working rather than the calendar changing, so they now quote the entry titles instead. The feed's own project strings are quotable again, now that the check reads a feed whose HTML is escaped inside its XML. The project a deadline belongs to is carried by a claim rather than by a summary alone. - 2026-09-04 · The commission's calendar feed still runs ahead of itself, with the next open meeting on Friday, September 11th, 2026 in the commissioners hearing room. Nothing on the feed moved between yesterday and today. - 2026-09-05 · The commission's calendar is still published as a live feed and still runs past the end of next year. The open meeting dates on it have not moved. - 2026-09-07 · The commission's calendar is still published as a live feed and still names its open meetings and its comment deadlines ahead of the day they fall. The entries the record quotes have not moved. - 2026-09-08 · The commission's calendar still publishes open meeting dates well into next year, so the schedule remains readable in advance by anyone who wants to attend. - 2026-09-09 · The commission's open meeting calendar is still published as a live feed running into 2027, so the dates a reader would plan around are still there to read. - 2026-09-10 · The calendar is still published as a live feed and still runs into 2027, so the dates a reader would plan around are still there to read. The September 4th comment deadline has come off it now that the date has passed, the same way a held meeting does. That leaves Project 59550 on September 17th as the only comment deadline the feed still carries. The feed also lists the grid operator's own board meetings, at an address that is not the commissioners hearing room. - 2026-09-10 · Corrected. Two claims carried a source title naming the September 4th comment deadline entry. Each quotes a different entry title on the same feed, so both now read entry title. - 2026-09-11 · The commission's calendar feed still publishes its open meetings with the hearing room named in each entry. The grid operator's own board meeting still sits on that same feed beside the commission's, dated September 14th, 2026. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. Still open, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. Still open, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-14 · The feed is still live and still publishes each open meeting with the room it sits in. Entries keep falling off the list once their date has passed, which is how this calendar behaves rather than a change to it. - 2026-09-15 · The commission's calendar feed is still live and still names the room each open meeting will sit in. Entries that have passed have come off it, which is how the feed has always behaved. - 2026-09-16 · The commission's meeting feed is still publishing dates well into next year, so the calendar remains the earliest public warning of a sitting. The dates already listed have not shifted. - 2026-09-17 · The September 11th open meeting has come off the feed now that its date has passed. The next one the public may attend is Friday, September 18th in the commissioners hearing room. A comment deadline for Project 59086 has appeared, closing October 15th, and the commission is still publishing meeting dates into the summer of 2027. - 2026-09-18 · The feed is still live and still carries the commission's open meetings with the comment deadlines attached to them. The open meeting the record named for today stands on it, in the commissioners hearing room, and the project deadlines listed after it have not moved. - 2026-09-21 · The feed answered and is still publishing the commission's open meetings with the room named on each one. A workshop has appeared on it since the last check, set for the week after this one and marked open to the public. The comment deadline the record already carries is still listed. - 2026-09-24 · The feed has rolled past the mid September entries the record quoted, which is what a live calendar does. It still lists the October 15th comment deadline for Project 59086 and still marks each open meeting open to the public. - 2026-09-27 · The commission still publishes its open meeting calendar as a live feed, and the feed still names the projects and hearing rooms ahead. - 2026-09-30 · The commission's calendar feed still runs as a live list of open meetings and comment deadlines, and it still names the hearing room for each meeting. - 2026-10-03 · The commission's open meeting calendar still publishes as a live feed and still runs out into next year. - 2026-10-06 · The commission's open meeting calendar still publishes as a live feed, dated well into next year. - 2026-10-08 · The September meetings, the September 17th deadline for Project 59550 and the grid operator's board meetings have come off the feed. The next open meeting is October 15th, the same day the comment window on Project 59086 closes, and the calendar now runs to July 2027. - 2026-10-09 · Checked and unchanged. Still open, with no dated movement. - 2026-10-10 · The commission's open meeting calendar still publishes as a live feed, with meetings listed well into next year. - 2026-10-11 · The commission still publishes its open meeting calendar as a live feed reaching well into next year. - 2026-10-12 · The commission's calendar feed still runs into next year. The workshop already held has dropped off and the next open meeting still leads the list. - 2026-10-15 · The commission's calendar feed still runs into next year, and today's open meeting leads it. - 2026-10-18 · The commission's calendar feed still lists its open meetings well into next year, each marked open to the public. - 2026-10-21 · The commission's calendar feed still runs into next year with each meeting marked open to the public. The October 6th workshop and the October 15th meeting and comment deadline have passed and left the feed. - 2026-10-24 · The commission's open meeting feed is still live and still publishes dates well into next year. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The next open meeting on the feed names the commissioners hearing room. > Commissioners Hearing Room 7-100 Source (primary_official): https://puc.texas.gov/agency/calendar/GetCalendarRss.aspx ### A workshop entry names the advisory committee it is held for. > The Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) will host a meeting of the Energy Waste Advisory Committee Source (primary_official): https://puc.texas.gov/agency/calendar/GetCalendarRss.aspx ### The feed dates the next open meeting the public may attend and names its room in the same entry. > Open Meeting - Thursday, October 15, 2026 Commissioners Hearing Room 7-100 ( Open To Public ) Source (primary_official): https://puc.texas.gov/agency/calendar/GetCalendarRss.aspx ### The feed carries workshops alongside its meetings and its deadlines. > Workshop - Tuesday, October 6, 2026 Commissioners Hearing Room 7-100 ( Open To Public ) Source (primary_official): https://puc.texas.gov/agency/calendar/GetCalendarRss.aspx ### The commission's filing index gives that project a name. > Large Load Demand Management Service Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=58482&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Descending ### The one comment deadline left on the feed falls on the same day as the next open meeting. > Public Comment Deadline - Thursday, October 15, 2026 Source (primary_official): https://puc.texas.gov/agency/calendar/GetCalendarRss.aspx ### The feed runs the open meeting calendar into the summer of next year. > Open Meeting - Thursday, July 29, 2027 Commissioners Hearing Room 7-100 ( Open To Public ) Source (primary_official): https://puc.texas.gov/agency/calendar/GetCalendarRss.aspx ### A workshop on the feed is held online rather than in the hearing room. > Workshop - Monday, November 16, 2026 Virtual ( Open To Public ) Source (primary_official): https://puc.texas.gov/agency/calendar/GetCalendarRss.aspx ### The remaining comment deadline is for a project the entry identifies only by number. > Public Comment Deadline - Thursday, October 15, 2026 Project 59086 NA ( Open To Public ) Source (primary_official): https://puc.texas.gov/agency/calendar/GetCalendarRss.aspx --- # Statute requires state agencies and local governments to post standardized notice of AI systems Every state agency and local government that deploys a public facing AI system must post a standardized notice on the related applications, websites and public computer systems. The same duty covers any system that is a controlling factor in a consequential decision. The Department of Information Resources is required to develop the notice form. That form must describe the system, its data sources and its privacy and ethics safeguards. - Topic: state-policy - Decided by: Texas Department of Information Resources (state-agency) - Where: Statewide - Status: pending - Public access: Write to the decider - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2025-09-01 · effective: SB 1964 took effect ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-19 · The posting duty is unconfirmed this run. The published chapter text available runs only as far as Section 2054.0702, and the notice provision sits beyond that point. - 2026-08-22 · The posting duty is confirmed. Section 2054.711 requires each state agency and local government deploying a public facing artificial intelligence system to post a standardized notice. It goes on all related applications and websites and public computer systems. That section also lets a hospital or an academic medical center satisfy the duty inside a patient consent form. - 2026-08-25 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-08-28 · Checked and unchanged. The notice duty is still in force and the Department of Information Resources has still not published the standardized form the statute tells it to develop. Agencies owe a notice whose shape nobody has issued. - 2026-09-01 · The standardized-notice duty still stands, while DIR has not published the required form. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-05 · The notice duty is still written into statute and no standardized notice form has been published for agencies to use. A resident still has no single place to see which systems are running. - 2026-09-08 · The standardized notice requirement for state and local AI systems is still law without a visible posting practice behind it. No agency template has surfaced. - 2026-09-09 · The standardized notice a state agency or a local government owes when it uses an AI system is still required by statute. It still has no posted form behind it. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-16 · The standardized notice the statute requires is still not appearing. A Texan looking for a posted statement of which systems an agency runs still has nowhere reliable to look. - 2026-09-19 · The standardized notice the statute requires is still not being posted in a form a resident could look up. - 2026-09-23 · The notice duty is still owed by every agency and local government the statute names, and no standard form has appeared. - 2026-09-26 · Agencies and local governments still owe the standardized notice, and the statute's text is unchanged. - 2026-09-29 · The duty to post a standardized notice of an artificial intelligence system still sits in the statute, worded as before. - 2026-10-02 · The statute still tells agencies and local governments to post a standardized notice when they use an artificial intelligence system. - 2026-10-05 · The statute requiring agencies and local governments to post a standard notice of their AI systems still reads as enacted. - 2026-10-08 · The requirement that agencies and local governments post a standard notice of the AI systems they use still reads as the Legislature wrote it. - 2026-10-11 · Agencies and local governments are still required to post a standard notice of the AI systems they run. - 2026-10-15 · The notice requirement for AI systems at agencies and local governments still reads as enacted. - 2026-10-18 · The duty for agencies and local governments to post standard notice of an AI system still reads as enacted. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-10-24 · The notice requirement for public AI systems still stands in statute as written. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### Agencies and local governments must post a standardized notice for public facing or consequential AI systems. > (a) Each state agency and local government deploying or using an artificial intelligence system that is public-facing or that is a controlling factor in a consequential decision shall include a standardized notice on all related applications, Internet websites, and public computer systems. Source (primary_official): https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/GV/htm/GV.2054.htm ### DIR must develop the notice form and the statute fixes its minimum contents. > (b) The department shall develop a form that agencies must use for the notice required under Subsection (a). The form must include: (1) general information about the system and data sources the system uses; and (2) measures taken to maintain compliance with information privacy laws and ethics standards. Source (primary_official): https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/GV/htm/GV.2054.htm --- # Temple Planning and Zoning Commission takes up a Unified Development Code amendment that would require a Conditional Use Permit for every future data center The Temple Planning and Zoning Commission has three data center items on its August 17th, 2026 agenda. The central one is a set of proposed Unified Development Code amendments. They would require a Conditional Use Permit for any future data center, even in districts where data centers are already allowed. The city says the change would add a public review step and let Temple attach project specific conditions, technical studies and supporting documentation before a project moves forward. A second item is zoning for a subsequent building in Rowan Digital Infrastructure's first phase at Synergy Industrial Park, which the developer calls Lasso. Temple's own data center hub states that domestic water use for Project Temple is contractually capped at 4,000 gallons per day. It also states that projects under this framework would have to use closed-loop cooling. - Topic: data-centers - Decided by: City of Temple Planning and Zoning Commission (city) - Where: Bell - Statistical areas: - Killeen-Temple, TX - Status: pending - Public access: Public meeting - Comment closes: 2026-08-17 - Take part: https://www.templetx.gov/datacenters - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-08-17 · hearing: Planning and Zoning Commission considers the UDC amendments, the Lasso zoning case and the Synergy Industrial Park plat ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-19 · Whether the commission has acted is unconfirmed. The city's data center page carries no dated action by the Planning and Zoning Commission and its most recent item is a council briefing from May 7th. - 2026-08-22 · Whether the commission acted is still unconfirmed. The city's notice for the August 17th meeting still describes the Conditional Use Permit amendments as items the commission will consider, and no record of a vote appears on it. That meeting date has now passed. - 2026-08-25 · The comment window closed on August 17th. - 2026-08-28 · The hearing on Temple's Unified Development Code amendments was held on August 17th and the window to speak to it has closed. The city has published no adopted ordinance since, so whether a Conditional Use Permit will be required for every future data center is still undecided. - 2026-09-01 · Temple's hearing has passed, but the city still has not published an adopted data-center permitting amendment. - 2026-09-02 · The comment window closed on August 17th. - 2026-09-05 · The Temple commission's amendment would still make every future data center a conditional use. It has not returned to the agenda. - 2026-09-08 · Temple's proposed code amendment would still put every future data center behind a conditional use permit. The commission has published no recommendation since the window shut. - 2026-09-09 · The comment window closed on August 17th. The Unified Development Code amendment that would write data centers into Temple's code has not come back for action. - 2026-09-12 · The comment window closed on August 17th. - 2026-09-13 · The comment window closed on August 17th. - 2026-09-16 · The Temple amendment that would make every future data center a conditional use is still waiting on the planning commission. No sitting has been noticed to take it up. - 2026-09-19 · The comment window closed on August 17th. - 2026-09-23 · Temple's permit amendment is still before the commission and has not come back to the council. - 2026-09-26 · The comment window closed on August 17th. Temple's permit requirement is still the amendment the commission took up. - 2026-09-29 · The comment window closed on August 17th. Temple's proposal to require a conditional use permit for every future data center has not moved to a final vote on the record. - 2026-10-02 · Temple's conditional use permit requirement for data centers has gone no further than the planning commission on the record. - 2026-10-05 · Temple's amendment on data centers still sits past the comment date of August 17th, with no final action posted. - 2026-10-08 · Temple has posted no final action on its data center amendment since the comment date of August 17th. - 2026-10-11 · Temple still shows no final action on the data center amendment. Its comment date of August 17th has long passed. - 2026-10-15 · Temple's record still shows no final action on the conditional use amendment for data centers. - 2026-10-18 · Temple's planning record still shows the conditional use amendment for data centers without a final action. - 2026-10-21 · The comment window closed on August 17th. - 2026-10-24 · Temple's amendment requiring a conditional use permit for every future data center still reads as the commission took it up, closing August 17th. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The Temple Planning and Zoning Commission will consider several data center items at its August 17th meeting. > As a part of that development process, the Temple Planning & Zoning Commission will consider several items related to data center development during its August 17 meeting. Source (primary_official): https://city-of-temple.prowly.com/467476-upcoming-meeting-notice ### The proposed code amendment would require a Conditional Use Permit for future data centers even where they are already a permitted use. > The proposed amendments would apply to future proposed projects by requiring a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), even in zoning districts where data centers are otherwise permitted. Source (primary_official): https://city-of-temple.prowly.com/467476-upcoming-meeting-notice ### The zoning item on the same agenda is a later building in Rowan's first phase, which the developer calls Lasso. > This is for a subsequent building related to Rowan's initial phase in Synergy Industrial Park. You may see this project referred to as Lasso by Rowan. Source (primary_official): https://city-of-temple.prowly.com/467476-upcoming-meeting-notice ### Temple states that domestic water use at Project Temple is contractually capped. > For Project Temple, the first Rowan hyperscale project being developed in Temple, domestic water use is contractually capped at 4,000 gallons per day. Source (primary_official): https://www.templetx.gov/datacenters ### Temple states that projects handled under this framework would have to use closed-loop cooling. > All data center projects addressed through this framework would be required to use closed-loop cooling systems. Source (primary_official): https://www.templetx.gov/datacenters --- # Taylor City Council unanimously approved the amended Compal tax abatement agreement Taylor City Council approved the Amended and Restated Tax Abatement Agreement with PDC TP 01 LOT A LLC and Compal Technology, Inc. at its August 13th, 2026 meeting. The minutes record a unanimous vote after the item was pulled from the consent agenda for separate consideration. The staff packet says the amendment preserves the original incentives and performance obligations and authorizes no additional incentives. The attached agreement places the property in Tax Abatement Reinvestment Zone No. 11. Approval is recorded, while execution by the parties is not established by the minutes. - Topic: data-centers - Decided by: Taylor City Council (city) - Where: Williamson - Statistical areas: - Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Public meeting - Comment closes: 2026-08-13 - Take part: https://taylortx.portal.civicclerk.com/event/2010/files/agenda/5956 - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-08-13 · hearing: Regularly scheduled Taylor City Council meeting at 6:00 p.m. at which the amended abatement was noticed for consideration - 2026-08-13 · ordered: The council approved the amended Compal abatement agreement unanimously ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-18 · Checked and unchanged. The amended abatement notice for Compal still posts on the City of Taylor newsflash. - 2026-08-21 · Checked. The city's notice of consideration still stands and still names the amended and restated abatement with Compal and the Taylor Port Building renovation. What the council did with it on August 13th is unconfirmed, because the city posts no minutes for that meeting. - 2026-08-25 · The comment window closed on August 13th. - 2026-08-28 · Taylor's council took the amended abatement agreement with Compal Technology on August 13th and the notice period has run out. The city has published nothing since recording what the council did with it. - 2026-09-01 · Taylor still publishes the amended Compal abatement notice, while the council's action remains absent from the city's published record. - 2026-09-02 · The city's notice for the amended agreement is no longer posted where it was, so the council's action on it is unconfirmed. - 2026-09-02 · The city's notice for the amended agreement is no longer posted and the address it stood at now returns nothing. The council's own agenda for August 13th carries the item, and the minutes the city published for that meeting are a scanned image that yields no text. What the council decided is on the record in a form nobody can read. - 2026-09-05 · The city's notice address still answers with nothing, so the amended abatement notice is still not posted. The recorded council meeting is still the only public trace of the item. - 2026-09-08 · The City of Taylor's notice of the amended Compal abatement is still gone from the address it was published to, and the address now answers with an error page. The council meeting it named has long passed and the city has still published no readable record of the outcome, so what Taylor decided remains unconfirmed. - 2026-09-09 · The city's notice of the amended Compal abatement is still gone from the page that carried it. The council video of the meeting where it was taken up is still posted, so the action can still be watched even though the notice can't be read. - 2026-09-12 · The city's notice of the amended Compal abatement is still gone from the page that carried it, and the page still answers not found. No outcome of the item has been published anywhere else. - 2026-09-13 · The city's notice of the amended Compal abatement is still off the page that carried it, so what the council did with the amendment is still unconfirmed. - 2026-09-16 · The city's notice of the amended abatement is gone from the city's own site and the address it sat at now answers nothing. What that notice said is therefore unconfirmed, and no replacement posting has appeared in its place. - 2026-09-19 · The city's notice of the amended agreement is still not posted. The council's own video index still carries the item on the August 13th consent agenda and no outcome has been published either way. What the council did with it is unconfirmed. - 2026-09-24 · The notice is still gone from the address it was posted to, and the city has since taken down its economic development notices page as well. The city's council meeting pages and archive carry no record of what the council decided. - 2026-09-27 · The city's notice of the amended agreement is still not posted anywhere on its site. The council video index still lists the item, and no outcome has been published. - 2026-09-30 · The city's notice of the amended agreement is still missing from its site. The council's video index still lists the item, and no outcome is published. - 2026-10-03 · The city's notice of the amended Compal agreement is still missing from its site, and no outcome has been published. The council's video index sits on a host that bars automated readers. - 2026-10-04 · The city's notice of the amended Compal agreement is still gone from its site, and no outcome of the council item has been published. - 2026-10-07 · The city's notice of the amended Compal abatement is still off its site, and the meeting video bars automated readers, so where the abatement stands is unconfirmed. - 2026-10-08 · Where the amended Compal abatement stands is still unconfirmed. The city's notice is still off its site and the meeting video still bars automated readers. - 2026-10-09 · The published council minutes record unanimous approval of the amended Compal agreement at the August 13th meeting. The packet preserves the original incentives and performance obligations without adding incentives. The earlier notice quotations remain in the source history. - 2026-10-12 · Taylor's minutes still record the council's unanimous vote on the amended Compal abatement, with the original incentives and performance terms kept. - 2026-10-15 · Taylor's packet still records the unanimous vote on the amended Compal abatement. Two scanned pages of it yield no text, so their wording is unconfirmed. - 2026-10-18 · Taylor's agenda packet still records the unanimous vote on the amended Compal abatement. The minutes and one later page of the packet are unconfirmed. - 2026-10-21 · Taylor's scanned minutes still record the unanimous vote on the amended Compal abatement after the item was pulled from the consent agenda. The staff packet is unconfirmed. - 2026-10-24 · Taylor's minutes still record the council's unanimous approval of the amended Compal abatement, with the window that closed on August 13th behind it. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The August 13th council agenda names the amended Compal agreement. > Consider approval of Amended and Restated Tax Abatement Agreement by and among the City of Taylor, PDC TP 01 LOT A LLC, and Compal Technology, Inc., a Texas corporation. Source (primary_official): https://taylortx.api.civicclerk.com/v1/Meetings/GetMeetingFileStream(fileId=5915,plainText=false) ### The council approved the amended agreement unanimously after separate consideration. > Motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Cmerk to approve the Amended and Restated Tax Abatement Agreement as presented. Motion was seconded by Councilman Redden. Motion carried unanimously. Source (primary_official): https://taylortx.api.civicclerk.com/v1/Meetings/GetMeetingFileStream(fileId=5956,plainText=false) ### Staff said the amendment preserves the existing incentives and performance obligations. > The amended and restated agreement supersedes the previously approved agreement while preserving the original economic incentives, performance obligations, and material business terms. Source (primary_official): https://taylortx.api.civicclerk.com/v1/Meetings/GetMeetingFileStream(fileId=5915,plainText=false) ### Staff said the amendment authorizes no additional incentives. > No additional tax abatements or incentives are authorized beyond those previously approved by the City Council. Source (primary_official): https://taylortx.api.civicclerk.com/v1/Meetings/GetMeetingFileStream(fileId=5915,plainText=false) ### The attached agreement identifies Tax Abatement Reinvestment Zone No. 11. > WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Taylor, Texas (the “City Council”), passed an Ordinance (the “Ordinance”) establishing Tax Abatement Reinvestment Zone No. 11 (the “Zone”), Source (primary_official): https://taylortx.api.civicclerk.com/v1/Meetings/GetMeetingFileStream(fileId=5915,plainText=false) ### The staff packet conditions effectiveness on approval and execution. > Effective upon approval and execution by the parties. Source (primary_official): https://taylortx.api.civicclerk.com/v1/Meetings/GetMeetingFileStream(fileId=5915,plainText=false) ### The Compal item was pulled from consent for separate consideration. > Consent Agenda Items #6 and #7 were pulled for separate consideration. Source (primary_official): https://taylortx.api.civicclerk.com/v1/Meetings/GetMeetingFileStream(fileId=5956,plainText=false) --- # Hays County Commissioners Court adopted a 180-day emergency water review period for high water use developments and created a review board The Hays County Commissioners Court approved a resolution on June 23rd, 2026 establishing a 180-day emergency water protection review period for high water use development applications, including data centers. The same resolution creates a review board that evaluates those proposals and advises the court. Commissioners voted unanimously. The county has been operating under drought conditions and water use restrictions tied to declining aquifer levels, which is the stated reason for the measure. This is the counter-image to the incentive votes elsewhere in Central Texas, since a county here chose to slow its own review rather than speed it up. - Topic: land-water-and-permitting - Decided by: Hays County Commissioners Court (county) - Where: Hays - Statistical areas: - Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://www.hayscountytx.gov/877/Commissioners-Court-Minutes - Last checked: 2026-10-21 ## Dates - 2026-06-23 · ordered: Commissioners Court approved the resolution establishing the review period and the review board ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-19 · Whether the emergency order has been extended or allowed to lapse is unconfirmed. The court's minutes archive carries nothing dated July or August. - 2026-08-22 · Whether the emergency order has been extended or allowed to lapse is still unconfirmed. The resolution pausing consideration of high water use development still stands as adopted and no later action appears. - 2026-08-26 · Checked and unchanged. The county's review board for water intensive development still stands and the resolution's stated reason is still the drought conditions and water use restrictions the county has been under. No later action is on the record. - 2026-08-29 · Checked and unchanged. The review period the court adopted still stands and the board it created still evaluates proposed high water use developments against water availability. Nothing on the county's record shortens or lifts it. - 2026-09-02 · The review period stands as adopted. The county has published no amendment and the transparency, water use and environmental survey requirements are unchanged. - 2026-09-05 · The Hays County review period for high water use development still stands as adopted and the board it created is unchanged. - 2026-09-08 · Hays County's emergency water review period for high water use developments still stands as adopted. The review board it created is still the body named to do the work. - 2026-09-09 · Hays County's emergency water review period for high water use developments is still running on the terms the court adopted. - 2026-09-12 · Hays County's emergency water review period for high water use developments is still running on the terms the court adopted. The review board it created has published no change to them. - 2026-09-13 · Hays County's review board for water intensive development is still standing. The temporary suspension of discretionary approvals reads as the court adopted it. - 2026-09-16 · The county's emergency review period for high water use development still stands as adopted. Nothing has been posted to shorten it or to let a paused application through. - 2026-09-19 · The emergency review period the court adopted is still the county's standing answer to a high water use development. - 2026-09-24 · The emergency review period is still in place as the court adopted it. - 2026-09-27 · The county's emergency review of high water use developments still stands as the court adopted it. - 2026-09-30 · The county's emergency review period for water still stands as the court adopted it, on the published account of the vote. - 2026-10-03 · The court's emergency review period for water still stands on the published accounts of the vote. - 2026-10-06 · The published accounts of Hays County's emergency water review period still describe it as adopted. The county's own minutes have not been read for it. - 2026-10-09 · Hays County's emergency water review period still reads as adopted in the account that answered today, the review board with it. - 2026-10-15 · Hays County's emergency water review period still reads as adopted in the Community Impact account. The public radio report is unconfirmed, since its site bars automated readers. - 2026-10-18 · Community Impact's account still has Hays County adopting the emergency water review period. The public radio report is unconfirmed, since its site bars automated readers. - 2026-10-21 · Community Impact's account of the 180 day water review period still reads as cited. KUT's report is unconfirmed. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### Hays County approved a resolution creating a 180-day emergency water protection review period and a review board. > The Hays County Commissioners Court approved a resolution establishing a 180-day emergency water protection review period for high-usage development applications, including data centers, and creating a review board to evaluate the proposals June 23. Source (journalism): https://communityimpact.com/austin/san-marcos-buda-kyle/government/2026/06/23/hays-county-passes-resolution-pausing-consideration-of-high-water-use-developments-data-centers/ ### The vote was unanimous and the board evaluates intensive water use developments such as data centers. > Hays County commissioners voted unanimously on Tuesday to establish a review board to evaluate proposed intensive-water-use developments like data centers. Source (journalism): https://www.kut.org/energy-environment/2026-06-23/hays-county-tx-data-centers-water-review-board ### The county's stated context is prolonged drought and declining aquifer levels. > Hays County has been facing drought conditions and water-use restrictions for a prolonged period of time, resulting from declining aquifer levels and diminishing water availability, according to previous Community Impact reporting. Source (journalism): https://communityimpact.com/austin/san-marcos-buda-kyle/government/2026/06/23/hays-county-passes-resolution-pausing-consideration-of-high-water-use-developments-data-centers/ --- # Williamson County Commissioners Court granted Compal USA Technology a Chapter 312 abatement for a Georgetown server service center The Williamson County Commissioners Court approved a Chapter 312 tax abatement incentive agreement for Compal USA Technology Inc. on April 15th, 2026. The county described the project as a server service center on approximately 33 acres at 1800 Aviation Drive in Georgetown. It is to support enterprise and cloud infrastructure needs, general warehousing and other work in the electronics, technology and medical device industries. Chapter 312 agreements are performance based, so the county does not grant the abatement until the company meets the required measures. The agreement sets a minimum capital investment of $35 million and requires no fewer than 100 full-time employees within three years. If the terms are met the county abates 30% of assessed value for 10 consecutive years, an estimated $526,010 over that period. The City of Georgetown approved its own incentives for Compal on December 9th, 2025. - Topic: data-centers - Decided by: Williamson County Commissioners Court (county) - Where: Williamson - Statistical areas: - Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://www.wilcotx.gov/m/newsflash/Home/Detail/789 - Last checked: 2026-10-05 ## Dates - 2025-12-09 · ordered: City of Georgetown approved its own incentives for Compal - 2026-04-15 · ordered: Williamson County Commissioners Court approved the Chapter 312 agreement - 2026-08-01 · statutory deadline: Construction start date required by the agreement - 2027-02-18 · statutory deadline: Construction completion date required by the agreement ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-19 · Checked and unchanged. The county's announcement of the Chapter 312 abatement agreement for the Georgetown server service center still stands as published on April 15th. Construction is still due to finish by February 18th, 2027. - 2026-08-22 · Checked and unchanged. The county's announcement of the Chapter 312 abatement for the Georgetown server service center still stands, and construction is still due to finish by February 18th, 2028. - 2026-08-22 · Checked and unchanged. The county's announcement of the Chapter 312 abatement for the Georgetown server service center still stands, and construction is still due to finish by February 18th, 2027. - 2026-08-25 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-08-28 · Checked and unchanged. The Chapter 312 agreement for the Georgetown server service center still stands as approved, and the county has published no amendment or termination. The acreage and the site address in the county's own description are unaltered. - 2026-09-01 · Williamson County's approved Compal server-service-center abatement remains in place without a published amendment or termination. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-05 · Williamson County's abatement for the Georgetown server service center still stands as granted. Nothing has been filed to amend or rescind it. - 2026-09-08 · Williamson County's abatement for the Georgetown server service center still stands as granted, and no amendment to it has been posted. - 2026-09-09 · The Chapter 312 abatement Williamson County granted Compal is still in force on the terms the court adopted, and the agreement has not been amended since. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-13 · Williamson County's performance based abatement for the Georgetown facility is unchanged, and the county still withholds the abatement until the company meets the measures. - 2026-09-16 · The abatement granted to Compal is still in force exactly as the court approved it. Every term the record quotes is still on the county's own posting. - 2026-09-19 · The abatement for the Georgetown server service center is still in force on the terms the court granted. - 2026-09-24 · Whether the Georgetown abatement still stands on the court's terms is unconfirmed this run. The county's own notice is the record's source for it and could not be read again. - 2026-09-26 · The Georgetown abatement still stands as the court granted it to the server service center. - 2026-09-29 · Compal's abatement for the Georgetown server service center stands on the terms the commissioners court granted. - 2026-10-02 · Compal's Georgetown abatement stands as the commissioners court granted it, with no amendment posted. - 2026-10-05 · Williamson County's abatement for Compal USA Technology's Georgetown plant still stands as the court granted it. - 2026-10-08 · Williamson County's abatement for Compal's Georgetown plant is unconfirmed today, because the county's site refused the request. - 2026-10-09 · Williamson County's abatement for Compal's Georgetown center is unconfirmed today, because the county's site refused the request. - 2026-10-10 · Williamson County's abatement for Compal's Georgetown plant stays unconfirmed today, because the county's site refused the request again. - 2026-10-24 · Williamson County's abatement for the Compal server plant in Georgetown is unconfirmed today, since the county's own notice refused the request. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### Williamson County approved a Chapter 312 abatement for Compal USA Technology Inc. in Georgetown. > The Williamson County Commissioners Court approved a Chapter 312 tax abatement incentive agreement for Compal USA Technology Inc. in Georgetown. Source (primary_official): https://www.wilcotx.gov/m/newsflash/Home/Detail/789 ### The facility is described as a server service center supporting enterprise and cloud infrastructure, with a minimum capital investment. > Per the agreement, the total capital investment of the project is a minimum of $35 million for the facility, which will operate a server service center supporting enterprise and cloud infrastructure needs, general warehousing and other activities in the electronics, technology and medical device industries. Source (primary_official): https://www.wilcotx.gov/m/newsflash/Home/Detail/789 ### The abatement is performance based and the county withholds it until measures are met. > Chapter 312 agreements are performance-based agreements. Williamson County does not grant the abatement until the company meets the required performance measures. Source (primary_official): https://www.wilcotx.gov/m/newsflash/Home/Detail/789 ### The abatement rate and term are set in the agreement. > If the terms of the agreement are met, Williamson County will abate 30% of the assessed value of the land and improvements and tangible personal property for 10 consecutive years. Source (primary_official): https://www.wilcotx.gov/m/newsflash/Home/Detail/789 ### The county estimated the value of the abatement over its full term. > The estimated value of the tax abatement on their planned investment in Georgetown would be $526,010 over a 10-year period. Source (primary_official): https://www.wilcotx.gov/m/newsflash/Home/Detail/789 ### The agreement sets employment, acreage, location and construction dates. > According to the agreement, Compal will employ no fewer than 100 full-time employees within three years. Construction will start by Aug. 1, 2026, and be completed by Feb. 18, 2027. The property is located on approximately 33 acres at 1800 Aviation Drive in Georgetown. Source (primary_official): https://www.wilcotx.gov/m/newsflash/Home/Detail/789 ### Georgetown had already approved city incentives for the same company. > The City of Georgetown approved incentives for Compal on Dec. 9, 2025. Source (primary_official): https://www.wilcotx.gov/m/newsflash/Home/Detail/789 --- # Austin City Council adopted Ordinance 20260423-029 creating City Code Chapter 2-19 on surveillance technology Austin City Council approved Ordinance No. 20260423-029 on April 23rd, 2026. It adds a new Chapter 2-19 to Title 2 of the city code, covering how any city department adopts, acquires, deploys, uses and reviews surveillance technology. The ordinance followed Resolution No. 20260205-061 of February 5th, 2026, which directed the City Manager to return to Council with a rule on the city's own use of that technology. The council file records no fiscal impact. Reporting has described the ordinance as banning facial recognition and restricting AI and machine learning tools. That language has not been confirmed against the ordinance text. - Topic: surveillance-and-policing - Decided by: Austin City Council (city) - Where: Travis - Statistical areas: - Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://www.austintexas.gov/council/2026/20260423-reg - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-02-05 · ordered: Resolution No. 20260205-061 directed the City Manager to return with a surveillance technology ordinance - 2026-04-23 · ordered: Ordinance No. 20260423-029 adopted, adding City Code Chapter 2-19 ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-19 · Checked and unchanged. The ordinance still adds Chapter 2-19 to Title 2 of the city code. It still governs the adoption and acquisition and deployment and use and review of surveillance technology by any city department. - 2026-08-22 · Checked and unchanged. Ordinance 20260423-029 still adds Chapter 2-19 to Title 2 of the city code. It still governs how any city department adopts and acquires and deploys and uses and reviews surveillance technology. - 2026-08-25 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-08-28 · Checked and unchanged. Chapter 2-19 is still in the Austin city code and no department has been exempted from it. The ordinance still governs how the city adopts and reviews surveillance technology. - 2026-09-01 · Austin's surveillance-technology chapter remains in the city code and continues to govern departmental adoption and review. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-05 · Austin's surveillance technology chapter is still in the City Code as adopted. The reporting duties it created are unchanged. - 2026-09-08 · Austin's surveillance technology chapter is still in the city code as adopted. The ordinance number and the chapter it created are unchanged. - 2026-09-09 · Austin's surveillance technology ordinance still stands as Chapter 2-19 of the city code. The reporting duties it created have not been narrowed. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-16 · Chapter 2-19 is still on the books as adopted, and the surveillance technology it governs is still subject to the review the ordinance created. The text has not been amended. - 2026-09-19 · The surveillance technology chapter is still city code, and nothing has been repealed out of it. - 2026-09-23 · Austin's surveillance chapter is still in the city code as adopted. - 2026-09-26 · Austin's surveillance technology chapter is still in the city code in the form the council adopted. - 2026-09-29 · Chapter 2-19 of the Austin City Code still governs how the city buys and uses surveillance technology. - 2026-10-02 · Austin still buys and runs surveillance technology under Chapter 2-19 as the council adopted it. - 2026-10-05 · Austin's surveillance technology chapter of the City Code still reads as the council adopted it. - 2026-10-08 · Austin's surveillance technology rules stand in the City Code as the council adopted them. - 2026-10-11 · Austin's surveillance technology chapter is still in the City Code as adopted. - 2026-10-15 · Austin's surveillance technology chapter sits in the City Code unchanged. - 2026-10-18 · Austin's chapter on surveillance technology still sits in the City Code as adopted. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · Austin's surveillance technology chapter still stands in City Code as the council adopted it. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### Council approved an ordinance adding Chapter 2-19 governing surveillance technology used by any city department. > Approve an ordinance amending City Code Title 2 (Administration) to add a new Chapter 2-19 (Surveillance Technology) relating to the adoption, acquisition, deployment, use, and review of surveillance technology by any City department. Source (primary_official): https://www.austintexas.gov/council/2026/20260423-reg ### The ordinance carried the number 20260423-029 and was recorded with no fiscal impact. > Funding: This item has no fiscal impact. Source (primary_official): https://www.austintexas.gov/council/2026/20260423-reg ### The ordinance followed a February resolution directing the City Manager to draft it. > Approve a resolution directing the City Manager to return to Council with an ordinance regulating the City's use of surveillance technology. Source (primary_official): https://www.austintexas.gov/council/2026/20260205-reg --- # UT System Board of Regents approved a School of Computing at UT Austin uniting computer science, information, statistics and data sciences The University of Texas System Board of Regents approved the creation of a School of Computing at The University of Texas at Austin on February 19th, 2026. The school merges computer science, information, statistics and data sciences into a single unit inside the College of Natural Sciences. The university framed the decision as advancing its leadership in computing and artificial intelligence. UT Austin says the school is committed to recruiting and hiring 50 faculty positions. It is slated to open in Fall 2026, so the term now beginning is its first. - Topic: research-and-science - Decided by: The University of Texas System Board of Regents (state-agency) - Where: Travis - Statistical areas: - Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://www.utsystem.edu/board-of-regents/meetings - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-02-19 · ordered: Board of Regents approved creation of the School of Computing - 2026-08-12 · hearing: Board's next regular meeting, held in Austin on August 12th and 13th, 2026 ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-19 · Whether the regents have revisited the approval is unconfirmed. The board met on August 12th and 13th and the item texts for that meeting are not published on the board's own meetings page. - 2026-08-22 · Checked and unchanged. The regents' approval still unites computer science and information and statistics and data sciences into one school within the College of Natural Sciences. The school is still slated to open in Fall 2026 and that term has now begun. - 2026-08-25 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-08-28 · Checked and unchanged. The School of Computing still stands as approved by the regents, and it still sits inside the College of Natural Sciences rather than as a free standing college. - 2026-09-01 · The regents' approval of UT Austin's School of Computing remains intact inside the College of Natural Sciences. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-05 · The School of Computing at Austin still stands as approved by the regents and the four units it unites are unchanged. - 2026-09-08 · The School of Computing at UT Austin still stands as the regents approved it, uniting the four units named in the item. - 2026-09-09 · The School of Computing the regents approved at UT Austin is still standing as authorized, and the departments folded into it have not been rearranged. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-16 · The School of Computing approved by the regents still stands as approved, uniting the four disciplines the item names. No later regental action has reopened it. - 2026-09-19 · The new school stands as the regents approved it, drawing the four existing units together. - 2026-09-23 · The School of Computing still stands as the regents approved it. - 2026-09-26 · The regents' approval of the School of Computing still stands, with the same four disciplines under one roof. - 2026-09-29 · The School of Computing stands as the regents approved it, joining computer science, information, statistics and data science. - 2026-10-02 · UT Austin's School of Computing still joins computer science, information, statistics and data science under one roof, as the regents approved. - 2026-10-05 · The Regents' approval of the School of Computing at UT Austin still stands. - 2026-10-08 · UT Austin's School of Computing still stands on the Regents' approval. - 2026-10-11 · The School of Computing at UT Austin still rests on the Regents' approval. - 2026-10-15 · The Regents' approval of the UT Austin School of Computing stands as recorded. - 2026-10-18 · The Regents' approval of a School of Computing at UT Austin still stands in their record. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · The School of Computing at UT Austin still stands as the regents approved it, joining computer science, information, statistics and data sciences. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The Board of Regents approved the creation of the School of Computing at UT Austin. > AUSTIN, Texas — The University of Texas System Board of Regents today approved the creation of a new School of Computing at The University of Texas at Austin, a major step in advancing the University's global leadership in computing, data, information and artificial intelligence that increasingly shape our society and economy. Source (primary_official): https://news.utexas.edu/2026/02/19/ut-launches-new-school-of-computing-uniting-computer-and-data-science-statistics-information-disciplines/ ### The school merges four existing disciplines into one unit. > The school will unite the disciplines of computer science, information, statistics and data sciences into a single school. Source (primary_official): https://news.utexas.edu/2026/02/19/ut-launches-new-school-of-computing-uniting-computer-and-data-science-statistics-information-disciplines/ ### The university states a faculty hiring commitment for the new school. > The school is committed to recruiting and hiring 50 faculty positions to educate more of the talent the country needs and generate more of the knowledge required to navigate profound technological change, while leading the nation in developing scientifically rigorous, human-centered approaches to computing, data and information. Source (primary_official): https://news.utexas.edu/2026/02/19/ut-launches-new-school-of-computing-uniting-computer-and-data-science-statistics-information-disciplines/ ### The school opens in Fall 2026. > The new school is slated to open in Fall 2026. Source (primary_official): https://news.utexas.edu/2026/02/19/ut-launches-new-school-of-computing-uniting-computer-and-data-science-statistics-information-disciplines/ --- # Killeen Planning and Zoning Commission voted against a conditional use permit for a $30 million ONMINE data center The Killeen Planning and Zoning Commission voted against a conditional use permit for a $30 million data center proposed by the company ONMINE. It voted at its regular meeting on April 27th, 2026. City staff had recommended approval. The commission's own agenda files the request as Case Z26-07. It is a conditional use permit to allow a data center on about two and a half acres at 6509 South Fort Hood Street. The land is zoned University District. The applicant of record is Belton Engineering, Inc. on behalf of 4 Lazy J Properties, LLC. The commission's vote is a recommendation, and the final decision on the zoning rests with the Killeen City Council. Two outlets report the tally differently, one as 4 to 1 to deny and one as 4 to 0 against with a single abstention. - Topic: data-centers - Decided by: City of Killeen Planning and Zoning Commission (city) - Where: Bell - Statistical areas: - Killeen-Temple, TX - Status: open - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://www.kwtx.com/2026/04/28/killeen-planning-commission-denies-permit-proposed-data-center/ - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-04-27 · ordered: Regular Planning and Zoning Commission meeting at which the conditional use permit was heard as public hearing PH-1, per the commission's own agenda ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-18 · Checked and unchanged. Killeen's council has taken the data center subject up as a future agenda item. - 2026-08-21 · Corrected. The commission's own agenda dates the hearing to April 27th, 2026. It files the request as Case Z26-07, a conditional use permit for a data center at 6509 South Fort Hood Street on land zoned University District. The applicant of record is Belton Engineering, Inc. on behalf of 4 Lazy J Properties, LLC. No Killeen agenda posted through August 27th, 2026 carries the case, so the council decision the commission's vote feeds into has not been scheduled. - 2026-08-26 · Checked and unchanged. The commission's vote against the conditional use permit still stands and the agenda item is still the one quoted here. Nothing has been refiled. - 2026-08-26 · Checked and unchanged. The Texas Scorecard account still reports the commission voting against the permit with an abstention. It still says the City Council makes the final decision, using that vote as a recommendation. - 2026-08-29 · Checked and unchanged. The commission's denial still stands as a recommendation rather than as the decision, and the final zoning call still belongs to the Killeen City Council. Nothing on the record shows the council has taken it up. - 2026-09-02 · The commission's denial of the conditional use permit stands and the city has recorded no further action on it. - 2026-09-05 · The Killeen commission's refusal of the conditional use permit still stands and the agenda that carried it is unchanged. Nothing new has been filed for the site. - 2026-09-08 · Killeen's commission still stands on its refusal of the conditional use permit for the ONMINE data center. The agenda that carried the item is still posted and no rehearing appears on a later one. - 2026-09-09 · Killeen's planning commission has not revisited the conditional use permit it voted down, and the agenda that carried it reads as it did. - 2026-09-12 · Killeen's planning commission has not taken the ONMINE conditional use permit back up. The agenda that carried the vote against it reads as it did. - 2026-09-13 · The commission's denial of the conditional use permit still stands, and the zoning question has not come back to the city council. - 2026-09-16 · The commission's refusal of the conditional use permit still stands, and the agenda that carried it still reads as it did. Nothing has been refiled for the same site. - 2026-09-19 · The commission's refusal stands and the permit has not come back to it in another form. - 2026-09-24 · Reporting of the commission's vote against the permit still reads as the record took it. No new application for the site has surfaced. - 2026-09-27 · The commission's vote against the permit still stands in the city's own agenda record. No new application for the site has appeared. - 2026-09-30 · The city's posted agenda still carries the permit request the planning commission voted against, and no council decision appears after it. - 2026-10-03 · The city's agenda still carries the permit the planning commission voted against. No council decision on it has been posted. - 2026-10-06 · Killeen's posted agenda still carries the data center permit its planning commission turned down. The council has posted no decision of its own on it. - 2026-10-09 · Killeen's agenda record still carries the data center permit its planning commission voted down. No council decision on it has been posted. - 2026-10-12 · The Killeen permit the planning commission voted down still sits on the city's agenda record. No council action on it has been posted. - 2026-10-15 · Killeen's agenda record still carries the permit the planning commission voted down. The television report is unconfirmed, since its site bars automated readers. - 2026-10-18 · Texas Scorecard's account of the planning commission voting the permit down still reads as cited. The city's own agenda and the television report are unconfirmed. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. Still open, with no dated movement. - 2026-10-24 · Killeen's planning commission vote against the ONMINE data center permit still stands on the city's record. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The commission denied the permit against a staff recommendation to approve. > The commission voted 4-1 to deny the permit for ONMINE's proposed $30 million facility, despite a staff recommendation for approval. Source (journalism): https://www.kwtx.com/2026/04/28/killeen-planning-commission-denies-permit-proposed-data-center/ ### A second outlet records the vote as 4-0 against at a late April meeting. > At a meeting of the Killeen Planning and Zoning Commission in late April, commissioners voted 4-0 against a $30 million data center project set to be built on the outskirts of the city. Source (journalism): https://texasscorecard.com/local/killeen-planning-zoning-votes-data-center-down/ ### The site and the developer are named in the reporting. > The project was planned to occupy two and a half acres on South Fort Hood Street and was to be built by the company ONMINE. Source (journalism): https://texasscorecard.com/local/killeen-planning-zoning-votes-data-center-down/ ### The council, not the commission, makes the final zoning decision. > The final decision on the data center zoning will be made by the Killeen City Council, using the commission's vote as a recommendation. Source (journalism): https://texasscorecard.com/local/killeen-planning-zoning-votes-data-center-down/ ### The commission's own agenda dates the meeting. > AGENDA REGULAR MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 27, 2026 Source (primary_official): https://www.killeentexas.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_04272026-1206 ### The agenda files the request as a numbered case and names the applicant, the acreage, the zoning and the address. > PH-1 Hold a public hearing and consider a request submitted by Belton Engineering, Inc. on behalf of 4 Lazy J Properties, LLC (Case# Z26-07) for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow a data center on property zoned “UD” (University District), being approximately 2.615 acres out of the M. T. Martin Survey, Abstract No. 963. The subject property is locally addressed as 6509 South Fort Hood Street, Killeen, Texas. Source (primary_official): https://www.killeentexas.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_04272026-1206 --- # El Paso City Council adopts a Data Center Policy Framework requiring a Special Permit for hyperscale projects The El Paso City Council voted on July 20th, 2026 to adopt a Data Center Policy Framework. The resolution came through a City Council Work Session and passed on a motion by Representative Boyar Trejo. The framework routes future hyperscale data center applications through a Special Permit with public notice, City Plan Commission review and a public hearing. It sets standards on water use, energy demand, noise and lighting. It also eliminates local economic incentives for future hyperscale projects. Implementation has to return to council as ordinance amendments, so the framework by itself changes no rule until those pass. El Paso sits in the Western Interconnection served by El Paso Electric and is not on ERCOT. - Topic: data-centers - Decided by: El Paso City Council (city) - Where: El Paso - Statistical areas: - El Paso, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://webapi.legistar.com/v1/elpasotexas/Matters/15758 - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-06-22 · filed: Matter 26-0778 introduced - 2026-07-20 · ordered: City Council Work Session approved the resolution adopting the framework ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-19 · Checked and unchanged. The city's own action record still carries the July 20th motion approving the resolution and still marks it passed. - 2026-08-22 · Checked and unchanged. The city's own action record still carries the July 20th approval of the resolution adopting the Data Center Policy Framework. It was moved by Representative Boyar Trejo and seconded by Representative Limon, and it is still marked passed. - 2026-08-26 · Checked and unchanged. The council's data center policy framework still stands as adopted and the city still describes it as the product of months of public engagement. - 2026-08-29 · Checked and unchanged. The policy framework still stands and a hyperscale data center still needs the special permit the council wrote into it. The environmental and public participation conditions are unaltered. - 2026-09-02 · The policy framework stands as adopted. The council's own history for the matter shows nothing after the vote that approved it. - 2026-09-05 · El Paso still requires a special permit for a data center under the framework it adopted. Nothing has been amended. - 2026-09-08 · El Paso's Data Center Policy Framework still requires a special permit for a hyperscale project, and the framework has not been amended since adoption. - 2026-09-09 · El Paso's Data Center Policy Framework still requires a Special Permit, and the council record behind it is unchanged. - 2026-09-12 · El Paso's Data Center Policy Framework still requires a Special Permit for a hyperscale project, and the council's own vote record behind it is unchanged. - 2026-09-13 · El Paso's framework still requires a Special Permit for a hyperscale project, and the council's own item record on it is unchanged. - 2026-09-16 · El Paso's framework still requires a special permit for a data center, and the ordinance record behind it is unchanged. No amendment has been introduced. - 2026-09-19 · The framework still makes a hyperscale project wait for a special permit, and the council has not amended it. - 2026-09-24 · El Paso's framework is still in force and still requires a special permit before a hyperscale project can proceed. - 2026-09-27 · El Paso's framework still stands in the council's own record, and a hyperscale project still needs a special permit before it can proceed. - 2026-09-30 · The council's adoption of the data center framework still stands in the city's own legislative record. - 2026-10-03 · The council's data center framework still stands in the city's own legislative record, the special permit requirement included. - 2026-10-06 · El Paso's legislative record still carries the data center framework as adopted, the special permit requirement with it. - 2026-10-09 · El Paso's record still carries the data center framework as adopted, hyperscale projects still needing a special permit. - 2026-10-12 · El Paso's data center framework still stands as adopted. A hyperscale project still needs a special permit. - 2026-10-15 · El Paso's data center framework still requires a special permit for a hyperscale project, as KVIA's account reads. - 2026-10-18 · El Paso's legislative record still shows the framework adopted with a special permit for a hyperscale project. KVIA's account is unconfirmed. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · El Paso's Data Center Policy Framework still requires a special permit for hyperscale projects, as the council adopted it. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The item El Paso City Council acted on was a resolution adopting the Data Center Policy Framework. > Discussion and action to approve a Resolution for the adoption of the Data Center Policy Framework. Source (primary_official): https://webapi.legistar.com/v1/elpasotexas/Matters/15758 ### The motion to approve was made by Representative Boyar Trejo and seconded by Representative Limon on July 20th, 2026, and it carried. > A motion was made by Representative Boyar Trejo, seconded by Representative Limón, to Approve the item. The motion carried by the following vote: Source (primary_official): https://webapi.legistar.com/v1/elpasotexas/Matters/15758/Histories ### The city manager framed the framework as the product of months of public engagement. > This framework reflects months of listening, public engagement and careful policy development. Source (journalism): https://kvia.com/news/business-technology/2026/07/20/el-paso-city-council-approves-data-center-policy-framework/ --- # El Paso City Council adopted a letter asking Governor Abbott to clarify his data center directives The El Paso City Council approved and adopted a letter to Governor Greg Abbott seeking clarification on his directives on data center development throughout Texas. The council took the item at its regular meeting on August 18th, 2026 as agenda item 34, and the motion carried. The item had been introduced on August 11th, 2026 by a member of the City Council. The question underneath it is jurisdictional, because El Paso is served by El Paso Electric in the Western Interconnection and statewide directives written around ERCOT do not automatically reach it. - Topic: data-centers - Decided by: El Paso City Council (city) - Where: El Paso - Statistical areas: - El Paso, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Closed - Take part: https://elpasotexas.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?LEGID=2572&GID=776&G=2431E662-8524-4328-8249-389E26A066A2 - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-08-11 · filed: Matter 26-0955 introduced - 2026-08-18 · hearing: Regular City Council meeting, 9:00 AM, item scheduled for discussion and action - 2026-08-18 · decided: Council approved and adopted the letter as agenda item 34, on a motion that carried ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-18 · Checked and unchanged. The matter reads Agenda Ready for the August 18th agenda with no passed date recorded. - 2026-08-21 · Decided. The El Paso City Council approved and adopted the letter to Governor Abbott at its August 18th, 2026 regular meeting, as agenda item 34, on a motion that carried. The matter record still reads Agenda Ready with no passed date, and the meeting's own item record and the matter's action history both record the approval. - 2026-08-25 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-08-28 · Checked and unchanged. El Paso's letter to the Governor still stands as adopted and the city has published no reply to it. The jurisdictional question the letter asks is still unanswered. - 2026-09-01 · El Paso's adopted letter seeking clarification of the governor's data-center directives still stands. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-05 · El Paso's letter asking the Governor to clarify the data center directives still stands and no clarification has been published in reply. - 2026-09-08 · El Paso's letter asking the Governor to clarify his data center directives still stands, and no reply from the Governor's office has been published. - 2026-09-09 · El Paso's letter asking the Governor to say what his data center directive covers is still on the record and still unanswered on the city's own page. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-16 · El Paso's letter asking the Governor to clarify his data center directives is still a letter with no answer on the record. The clarification it asked for has not been published. - 2026-09-19 · The letter asking the Governor to clarify the data center directives has drawn no published answer. - 2026-09-23 · El Paso's letter to the Governor still asks for the same clarification and has drawn no published answer. - 2026-09-26 · El Paso's letter still asks the Governor to clarify his data center directives, and no reply has been published. - 2026-09-29 · El Paso's letter asking the Governor to clarify his data center directives has drawn no published answer. - 2026-10-02 · The Governor's office has published no answer to El Paso's request that he clarify his data center directives. - 2026-10-05 · El Paso's legislative record still shows the council adopting the letter that asks the Governor to clarify his data center directive. - 2026-10-08 · El Paso's record still shows the council's letter asking the Governor to clarify his data center directive. - 2026-10-11 · El Paso's letter asking the Governor to clarify his data center directives is still on the council's record. - 2026-10-15 · El Paso's letter to the Governor on his data center directives is still in the council record as adopted. - 2026-10-18 · The council record still carries El Paso's letter asking the Governor to clarify his data center directives. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · El Paso's letter asking the Governor to clarify his data center directives still stands as the council adopted it. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The August 18th, 2026 El Paso City Council agenda carries an item to approve and adopt a letter to Governor Greg Abbott seeking clarification on his data center directives. > Discussion and action to Approve and Adopt a letter by the El Paso City Council to Texas Governor Greg Abbott seeking clarification on his directives on data center development throughout the State of Texas. Source (primary_official): https://webapi.legistar.com/v1/elpasotexas/Matters/16074 ### The August 18th, 2026 regular City Council meeting is held at 9:00 AM in Council Chambers at City Hall and virtually. > COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, 300 N. CAMPBELL AND VIRTUALLY Source (primary_official): https://webapi.legistar.com/v1/elpasotexas/Events?$filter=EventDate+eq+datetime'2026-08-18' ### The council approved the letter on a motion that carried. > A motion was made by Representative Limón, seconded by Representative Acevedo, to Approve the item. The motion carried by the following vote: Source (primary_official): https://webapi.legistar.com/v1/elpasotexas/events/2572/eventitems?AgendaNote=1&MinutesNote=1&Attachments=0 ### The meeting's own item record carries the field EventItemPassedFlagName with the value Pass. > Pass Source (primary_official): https://webapi.legistar.com/v1/elpasotexas/events/2572/eventitems?AgendaNote=1&MinutesNote=1&Attachments=0 ### The matter's own action history carries an entry dated August 18th, 2026 whose MatterHistoryActionName is Approve. > Approve Source (primary_official): https://webapi.legistar.com/v1/elpasotexas/Matters/16074/histories --- # El Paso City Council amends its state legislative agenda to seek protection for residential ratepayers from data center utility costs On June 23rd, 2026 the El Paso City Council directed the City Manager to amend the city's 90th Session State Legislative Agenda. The amendment adds advocacy for policy protecting residential ratepayers from the utility costs of data centers. The item cites Governor Greg Abbott's June 10th, 2026 letter to Public Utility Commission of Texas Chairman Thomas Gleeson and ERCOT chief executive Pablo Vegas. It also directs the City Manager and City Attorney to determine whether the electric grid El Paso residents use is incorporated under that directive. The motion was made by Representative Fierro, seconded by Representative Chavez, and it carried. El Paso Electric operates in the Western Interconnection, so ratepayer protections built for ERCOT do not reach El Paso customers by default. - Topic: power-and-the-grid - Decided by: El Paso City Council (city) - Where: El Paso - Statistical areas: - El Paso, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://webapi.legistar.com/v1/elpasotexas/Matters/15727 - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-06-16 · filed: Matter 26-0771 introduced - 2026-06-23 · ordered: City Council approved the direction to amend the legislative agenda ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-19 · Checked and unchanged. The city's own action record still carries the June 23rd motion by Representative Fierro, seconded by Representative Chavez, and still marks it passed. - 2026-08-22 · Checked and unchanged. The city's action record still carries the June 23rd approval directing the City Manager to amend the state legislative agenda. It was moved by Representative Fierro and seconded by Representative Chavez, and it is still marked passed. - 2026-08-25 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-08-28 · Checked and unchanged. The city's state legislative agenda still carries the added advocacy for residential ratepayers, and the council has not amended it again. - 2026-09-01 · El Paso's legislative agenda still seeks protection for residential ratepayers from data-center utility costs. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-05 · El Paso still carries residential ratepayer protection on its legislative agenda. The amendment is unchanged. - 2026-09-08 · El Paso still carries residential ratepayer protection from data center costs in its state legislative agenda. The amendment has not been revisited. - 2026-09-09 · The city's state legislative agenda still carries the ask that residential ratepayers be protected from large load costs, in the words the council adopted. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-16 · The city's legislative agenda still carries the ask for residential ratepayer protection from data center costs. Nothing has moved it off the agenda or satisfied it. - 2026-09-19 · The city's legislative agenda still carries the request to protect residential ratepayers from data center costs, and the session it is aimed at has not convened. - 2026-09-23 · El Paso is still carrying residential ratepayer protection on its legislative agenda. - 2026-09-26 · Protection for residential ratepayers from data center utility costs is still on El Paso's legislative agenda. - 2026-09-29 · El Paso's legislative agenda still asks the Legislature to shield residential ratepayers from data center utility costs. - 2026-10-02 · Protection for residential ratepayers from data center utility costs is still on El Paso's list of asks for the Legislature. - 2026-10-05 · El Paso's legislative agenda still carries the ask to protect residential ratepayers from data center costs. - 2026-10-08 · El Paso's legislative agenda still asks the state to keep data center costs off residential bills. - 2026-10-11 · El Paso's legislative agenda still seeks protection for residential ratepayers from data center costs. - 2026-10-15 · El Paso's legislative agenda still asks for protection for household ratepayers from data center costs. - 2026-10-18 · El Paso's legislative agenda still asks lawmakers to shield household ratepayers from data center utility costs. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · El Paso's legislative agenda still asks lawmakers to shield residential ratepayers from data center utility costs. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The council item directed the City Manager to amend El Paso's 90th Session State Legislative Agenda to support policy protecting residential ratepayers from data center utility costs, referencing the Governor's June 10th, 2026 letter to the PUCT chairman and the ERCOT chief executive. > Discussion and action to direct the City Manager to amend the City of El Paso's 90th Session State Legislative Agenda to include advocacy support for policy related to protecting residential ratepayers from utility costs of data centers as proposed by Governor Greg Abbott's letter to the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC) Chairman Thomas Gleeson and Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) CEO Pablo Vegas on June 10, 2026. Additionally, direct the City Manager and City Attorney to determine - as per Governor Greg Abbott's immediate directive- that the electrical utility grid that the City of El Paso's residents utilize is incorporated. Source (primary_official): https://webapi.legistar.com/v1/elpasotexas/Matters/15727 ### The item passed on June 23rd, 2026 on a motion by Representative Fierro seconded by Representative Chavez. > A motion was made by Representative Fierro, seconded by Representative Chávez, to Approve the item. The motion carried by the following vote: Source (primary_official): https://webapi.legistar.com/v1/elpasotexas/Matters/15727/Histories --- # Guadalupe County Commissioners Court unanimously approves ending the county's Flock Safety license plate reader contract Guadalupe County Sheriff Joshua Ray asked the Commissioners Court for permission to terminate the county's contract with Flock Safety, and the court approved unanimously. Flock cameras read license plates automatically and alert deputies to vehicles of interest. Ray told the court his view of the technology has not changed and that the reason is cost. The county pays to replace cameras that keep getting vandalized while continuing to pay the monthly bill. Guadalupe County sits in the San Antonio metro area between Seguin and New Braunfels. - Topic: surveillance-and-policing - Decided by: Guadalupe County Commissioners Court (county) - Where: Guadalupe - Statistical areas: - San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://guadalupe.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=1 - Last checked: 2026-09-27 ## Dates - 2026-08-04 · ordered: Commissioners Court approved the sheriff's request to terminate the Flock Safety contract, as reported by the Seguin Gazette ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-19 · Whether the court has revisited the agreement is unconfirmed. The county publishes no meeting dates or item text on its agendas page and carries nothing dated July or August. - 2026-08-22 · Whether the court has revisited the agreement is still unconfirmed. The sheriff's decision to end the county's Flock Safety contract still stands as reported and no later county action appears. - 2026-08-26 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-08-29 · The court's decision to end the contract is still corroborated by the San Antonio station's account, which still carries the vandalism of every Flock camera in Seguin. The sheriff's stated reasoning for ending it, which the record takes from the Seguin paper, is unconfirmed this run because that account is no longer readable without a subscription. - 2026-09-02 · The termination of the county's camera contract stands and the commissioners court has recorded no move to restore it. - 2026-09-05 · The county's end of its plate reader contract still stands on the San Antonio station's account. The newspaper carrying the sheriff's own words now sits behind a subscription wall, so what he said about the cost is unconfirmed. - 2026-09-07 · The San Antonio station's account still carries the sheriff's own words on why the contract ended. The cost of replacing vandalized cameras is still the reason he gives rather than the technology itself. The Seguin newspaper's account can no longer be read, because that publisher's crawl rules now exclude automated readers, so three quotes drawn from it are unconfirmed today. Three the station carries in its own words now stand beside them and they do not differ. - 2026-09-10 · The San Antonio station's account still carries the sheriff's stated reason, which is the cost of replacing vandalized cameras rather than a change of view about the technology. It still records that every Flock camera in Seguin was vandalized and that the county is refusing to pay to replace them. The Seguin newspaper's account still can't be read by an automated reader, so the quotes drawn from it stay unconfirmed, and nothing the station carries differs from them. - 2026-09-13 · Guadalupe County's end of the Flock contract still stands. The sheriff's stated reason is still the vandalism of the cameras rather than a change of view about what they do. - 2026-09-16 · The county's Flock contract is still terminated and the sheriff's office has not sought a replacement. The termination is still the last action on the record. - 2026-09-19 · The county is still out of the license plate reader contract the court voted to end. - 2026-09-24 · The county remains out of the plate reader contract its court voted to end. - 2026-09-27 · The county is still out of the plate reader contract its court voted to end. - 2026-09-30 · That the county is out of the plate reader contract is unconfirmed this time. Both published accounts of the vote sit on sites that bar automated readers, and no county record of the vote was found to read instead. - 2026-10-01 · That the county is out of the plate reader contract is still unconfirmed. Both published accounts of the vote sit on sites that bar automated readers, and no county record of the vote has been posted to read instead. - 2026-10-02 · That Guadalupe County has left its plate reader contract is still unconfirmed. Both published accounts bar automated readers and no county record of the vote has been posted. - 2026-10-03 · Guadalupe County's exit from its plate reader contract is still unconfirmed. Both published accounts bar automated readers, and the county's agenda page carries no record of the vote. - 2026-10-03 · The cited Seguin Gazette and KSAT accounts remain unconfirmed. Live robots rules exclude project readers. The county's accessible agenda page contains no quoted contract decision. Its embedded meeting archive also refuses automated access. These are source-access measurements, not a new verification of the termination or the sheriff's quotations. - 2026-10-04 · That Guadalupe County has left its plate reader contract is still unconfirmed. The county keeps its minutes and meeting video in an archive that bars automated readers, as do both published accounts of the vote. - 2026-10-05 · Guadalupe County's exit from its Flock contract is still unconfirmed. The county's minutes archive and both published accounts bar automated readers. - 2026-10-06 · Guadalupe County's exit from its Flock contract is still unconfirmed. The county's minutes and both published accounts bar automated readers. - 2026-10-07 · Guadalupe County's end of its plate reader contract is still unconfirmed. The county's minutes and both published accounts bar automated readers. - 2026-10-08 · Guadalupe County's end of its plate reader contract remains unconfirmed. The county's minutes and both published accounts still bar automated readers. - 2026-10-09 · Guadalupe County's end of its plate reader contract remains unconfirmed. Its minutes and both published accounts still bar automated readers. - 2026-10-10 · Guadalupe County's end of its plate reader contract stays unconfirmed. Its minutes and both published accounts bar automated readers. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The sheriff told the court the cameras work as a law enforcement tool and that what changed was the cost, not his view of the technology. > My opinion of the technology hasn't changed. What changed is the cost. Source (journalism): https://seguingazette.com/news/sheriff-ends-county-s-flock-safety-contract/article_6747d32d-f659-4c2c-b14a-cac72fd18913.html ### Under the agreement the county was responsible for replacing damaged cameras, and the sheriff refused to keep buying replacements. > Under our current agreement, replacing damaged cameras falls on the county, and I refuse to spend your tax dollars replacing equipment that is likely to keep getting torn down, paying again when they come down, and paying the monthly bill in between the whole time. Source (journalism): https://seguingazette.com/news/sheriff-ends-county-s-flock-safety-contract/article_6747d32d-f659-4c2c-b14a-cac72fd18913.html ### The sheriff named the sum he refused to spend on equipment he expected to be destroyed. > I'm not spending $45,000 of your money on equipment that won't be standing next year. Source (journalism): https://seguingazette.com/news/sheriff-ends-county-s-flock-safety-contract/article_6747d32d-f659-4c2c-b14a-cac72fd18913.html ### Public scrutiny of the cameras was part of the sheriff's stated reasoning, and cameras in Seguin were vandalized. > Every Flock camera in Seguin was vandalized Source (journalism): https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2026/08/08/guadalupe-county-terminates-contract-with-flock-safety-citing-public-scrutiny/ ### The sheriff gave the cost of replacing vandalized cameras as his reason. > I refuse to spend your tax dollars replacing equipment that is likely to keep getting torn down Source (journalism): https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2026/08/08/guadalupe-county-terminates-contract-with-flock-safety-citing-public-scrutiny/ ### The sheriff named public scrutiny as what the cameras had drawn. > There’s so much public scrutiny over it Source (journalism): https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2026/08/08/guadalupe-county-terminates-contract-with-flock-safety-citing-public-scrutiny/ ### The county says the vendor would not cover replacement of the damaged cameras. > is refusing to pay the cost to replace those cameras Source (journalism): https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2026/08/08/guadalupe-county-terminates-contract-with-flock-safety-citing-public-scrutiny/ --- # Laredo City Council declined a data center moratorium, and its direction to write permanent rules has reached three agendas with no recorded action Laredo City Council declined to impose a temporary moratorium on data center permits at its meeting on July 27th, 2026. The council item asks staff to evaluate the impacts of high intensity data processing facilities on municipal infrastructure, water resources, electrical demand and land use compatibility. It also asks staff to recommend regulatory standards. The city's own record carries that item on the June 15th and July 27th agendas and records no action taken at either meeting. It returned to the August 3rd, 2026 agenda and the city records no action there either. The city attorney told the council that Laredo's existing Land Development Code already prohibits uses that are not specifically permitted. Planning staff reported that neither the city nor Webb County had received an application for a data center. - Topic: data-centers - Decided by: Laredo City Council (city) - Where: Webb - Statistical areas: - Laredo, TX - Status: open - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://cityoflaredo.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx - Last checked: 2026-10-22 ## Dates - 2026-07-27 · hearing: Regular City Council meeting at which the moratorium was declined and the direction to write rules was taken up, with no action recorded - 2026-08-03 · hearing: Regular City Council meeting at which the same council item returned as agenda item 65 - 2026-08-11 · hearing: Mayor-hosted community town hall on proposed data center regulations ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-18 · Checked and unchanged. - 2026-08-21 · Corrected. The council meeting was July 27th, 2026 rather than August 5th, which is the date the reporting published. The city files the direction to write rules as a council item on high intensity data processing facilities. It records no action taken on it at the June 15th and July 27th meetings. It returned to the August 3rd, 2026 agenda and the city records no action there either. - 2026-08-26 · Checked and unchanged. The council still has no moratorium in place and the direction to write permanent standards still stands. The mayor's framing of that direction as regulation rather than a halt is still on the record. The quote is corrected to read as the two sentences the source actually prints. - 2026-08-26 · Checked and unchanged. The city's matter 26-C-105 is still filed and its action history still carries two rows. Every one reads "no action taken" and the later is dated July 27th, 2026. - 2026-08-29 · Checked and unchanged. The council still declined a moratorium and its direction to write permanent standards still stands. The land development code still carries no definition of a data center, which is the gap the direction was given to close. - 2026-09-02 · The council's own history for the matter still reads no action taken. The permanent rules the council asked for have not come back to it. - 2026-09-05 · Laredo still has no moratorium and the permanent rules the council directed are still unwritten. Nothing has come back to the council. - 2026-09-08 · Laredo still has no data center moratorium and still has no permanent rules written. The council's direction to draft them has now sat across several agendas with nothing recorded against it. - 2026-09-09 · Laredo still has no moratorium and the direction to write permanent standards is still outstanding. Nothing has come back to the council. - 2026-09-12 · Laredo still has no data center moratorium. The direction to write permanent standards has not come back to the council on any agenda since. - 2026-09-13 · Laredo still has no moratorium. The direction to bring back standards for high intensity data processing facilities is still outstanding. - 2026-09-16 · Laredo still has no moratorium and still has permanent standards only in the direction stage. Neither half of that has moved. - 2026-09-19 · The city still has no moratorium, and the permanent rules the council asked its staff for have not come back to it. - 2026-09-24 · Laredo still has no moratorium. The permanent rules the council asked its staff to write have not come back before it. - 2026-09-27 · Laredo still has no moratorium. The council's own record shows the permanent rules it asked for have not come back to a vote. - 2026-09-30 · The city's legislative record still shows the council declining the moratorium and sending the rules back to be written. - 2026-10-03 · Laredo's legislative record still shows the council declining a moratorium and sending permanent rules back to be written. - 2026-10-06 · Laredo's legislative record still shows the council turning down a moratorium and asking for permanent rules instead. Those rules have not come back to the council yet. - 2026-10-09 · Laredo's legislative record still shows the moratorium declined and permanent rules requested. The rules have not returned to the council. - 2026-10-12 · Laredo still has no moratorium and no permanent data center rules. The rules the council asked for have not come back to it. - 2026-10-15 · Laredo still has no moratorium and no permanent data center rules in the records that answered. The station's account is unconfirmed. - 2026-10-18 · Laredo's council records still show the moratorium declined and staff told to write permanent rules. The station's account is unconfirmed, since its site bars automated readers. - 2026-10-22 · Laredo's council records still show the moratorium turned down and staff sent to write permanent rules. The station's account stays unconfirmed, since its site bars automated readers. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The council directed city management and the city attorney's office to draft regulations for large water and utility users. > city management and the city attorney's office to draft regulations governing industries that require substantial water consumption or place significant demands on public utilities Source (journalism): https://www.govtech.com/artificial-intelligence/laredo-texas-moves-to-set-permanent-data-center-standards ### The city attorney told the council the existing Land Development Code already gives Laredo protection. > I believe we're well protected at this point in time, Source (journalism): https://www.govtech.com/artificial-intelligence/laredo-texas-moves-to-set-permanent-data-center-standards ### Webb County reported it had received no application for a similar project. > had also contacted Webb County, which reported it had not received an application for a similar project. Source (journalism): https://www.govtech.com/artificial-intelligence/laredo-texas-moves-to-set-permanent-data-center-standards ### The mayor framed the direction as regulation rather than a halt to development. > It is about ensuring that growth is responsible, sustainable, and in the best long-term interests of our community. Source (journalism): https://www.govtech.com/artificial-intelligence/laredo-texas-moves-to-set-permanent-data-center-standards ### Before the final direction, a council member had publicly called for a moratorium modeled on Harlingen's. > we need a moratorium on data centers for Laredo, just like the City of Harlingen did... to write the rules for any potential applications that we get. Source (journalism): https://www.kgns.tv/2026/07/31/laredo-council-moves-freeze-data-center-applications-amid-regulatory-gap/ ### The city files the direction as a council item naming high intensity data processing facilities and listing what staff is asked to evaluate. > Discussion and possible action directing City staff to evaluate the impacts of High-Intensity Data Processing Facilities on municipal infrastructure, water resources, electrical demand, and land-use compatibility, and to develop and present recommendations for regulatory standards related to water use, conservation, water reuse, cooling technologies, resource efficiency, and other operational and environmental considerations applicable to such facilities; and any other matter incident thereto. Source (primary_official): https://webapi.legistar.com/v1/cityoflaredo/Matters/7693 ### The matter's action history carries an entry dated June 15th, 2026 whose MatterHistoryActionName is the phrase below. > no action taken Source (primary_official): https://webapi.legistar.com/v1/cityoflaredo/Matters/7693/histories ### The action history carries the same phrase on the July 27th, 2026 entry, which is the meeting the reporting describes. > no action taken Source (primary_official): https://webapi.legistar.com/v1/cityoflaredo/Matters/7693/histories ### The item returned to the August agenda carrying the EventItemAgendaNumber below. > 65. Source (primary_official): https://webapi.legistar.com/v1/cityoflaredo/events/1331/eventitems?AgendaNote=1&MinutesNote=1&Attachments=0 --- # Harlingen Waterworks System board approves an effluent water supply agreement with RGV Property LLC for a proposed data center The City of Harlingen Waterworks System board of directors approved a water supply agreement with RGV Property LLC for a supply of effluent water. The water is intended to serve a proposed data center on land outside the Harlingen city limits in Cameron County. The board's own minutes carry the vote, 6 yeas and 0 nays. The trustees took it after consulting their attorney in executive session on what the agenda calls the RGVPG Data Center reclaimed water agreement. Roy Rodriguez, the interim general manager at that meeting, is recorded as the officer who recommended approval. The minutes call it a supply of effluent water. - Topic: land-water-and-permitting - Decided by: City of Harlingen Waterworks System Board of Directors (special-district) - Where: Cameron - Statistical areas: - Brownsville-Harlingen, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://www.hwws.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Minutes-25-09-22-Special.pdf - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2025-09-22 · ordered: Special board meeting at which the water supply agreement was approved, per the board's posted minutes file ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-19 · Whether the agreement has changed is unconfirmed. The board publishes the minutes of that meeting only as a scanned document with no readable text. - 2026-08-22 · Whether the agreement has changed is still unconfirmed. The effluent water supply agreement for the proposed data center still stands as approved. The board still publishes the minutes of that meeting only as a scanned document with no readable text. - 2026-08-26 · Checked and unchanged. The board's effluent water supply agreement still stands and the utility's position that the plant will not draw drinking water is still the one on the record. - 2026-08-29 · Checked and unchanged. The water supply agreement the board approved still stands, and the water it sells is still effluent from the wastewater plant rather than drinking water. The volume parameters the board set are unchanged. - 2026-09-02 · The current standing of the effluent supply agreement is unconfirmed. - 2026-09-03 · The board's own posted minutes were read this run and they confirm the agreement. The minutes record a vote of 6 yeas and 0 nays on a water supply agreement with RGV Property LLC for a supply of effluent water. The board took it after an executive session on what the agenda calls the RGVPG Data Center reclaimed water agreement. The item had rested on a news article whose page serves nothing a quote can be read from. Four claims now cite the minutes, and the record no longer depends on that article for the vote. The minutes give Roy Rodriguez as interim general manager at that meeting, and the summary said general manager, which is corrected. - 2026-09-03 · Two claims were removed rather than re-stamped. They rested on a yahoo.com article page, which answers 200 at half a megabyte and serves nothing a quote can be read from. They carried an August 14th fetch date under an item stamped verified today. The board's own minutes carry neither the general manager's drinking water remark nor the minimum annual payment figure. Neither claim moved to a readable source and neither is published any more. The summary's closing sentence now says what the minutes say. - 2026-09-07 · The board's own signed minutes still carry the vote and still record it as unanimous. The water in the agreement is still effluent rather than drinking water, and the interim general manager who recommended it is still the name on the recommendation. - 2026-09-10 · The board's approval of the effluent supply agreement still stands, and the agreement is still the one the record quotes. Nothing has been filed against it and no later action has replaced it. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-16 · The Harlingen effluent supply agreement is still approved and still points at a data center that has not been built. No amendment or cancellation has been posted. - 2026-09-19 · The effluent supply agreement stands, so the proposed data center's water is still to come from treated wastewater rather than from drinking supply. - 2026-09-23 · The Harlingen effluent agreement still stands as the board approved it. - 2026-09-26 · The Harlingen effluent agreement for the proposed data center still stands as the waterworks board approved it. - 2026-09-29 · The effluent supply agreement between Harlingen Waterworks and RGV Property holds as the board approved it. - 2026-10-02 · Harlingen Waterworks' effluent agreement with RGV Property stands on the terms its board approved. - 2026-10-05 · The Harlingen Waterworks effluent supply agreement with RGV Property still stands as the board approved it. - 2026-10-08 · The Harlingen Waterworks board's effluent agreement with RGV Property stands as approved. - 2026-10-11 · The Harlingen Waterworks effluent agreement with RGV Property still stands as the board approved it. - 2026-10-15 · The Harlingen Waterworks effluent agreement with RGV Property reads as the board approved it. - 2026-10-18 · The Harlingen Waterworks board's effluent agreement with RGV Property still reads as approved. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · Harlingen Waterworks' effluent supply agreement for the proposed data center still stands as the board approved it. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The board's own minutes name the counterparty and what the board agreed to supply. > a supply of effluent water Source (primary_official): https://www.hwws.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Minutes-25-09-22-Special.pdf ### The minutes record the recommendation the board acted on and name the agreement. > Roy Rodriguez recommended the Board approve a Water Supply Agreement and RGV Property LLC for a supply of effluent water as described in the contract. Source (primary_official): https://www.hwws.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Minutes-25-09-22-Special.pdf ### The board took the matter into executive session under the open meetings statute, and the agenda item names the data center. > to consult with attorney pursuant to TX Gov't Code Section 551.071(2) regarding the RGVPG Data Center reclaimed water agreement. Source (primary_official): https://www.hwws.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Minutes-25-09-22-Special.pdf ### The minutes record how the trustees split on the motion. > Motion to Approve: 6 Yeas 0 Nays Source (primary_official): https://www.hwws.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Minutes-25-09-22-Special.pdf ### The minutes give the title the general manager held at that meeting. > Roy Rodriguez, Interim General Manager Source (primary_official): https://www.hwws.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Minutes-25-09-22-Special.pdf --- # National Science Foundation names UT El Paso in the first round of CyberAICorps Scholarship for Service awards The National Science Foundation announced the first awards under its CyberAICorps Scholarship for Service program on July 28th, 2026. The University of Texas at El Paso is on the list. UTEP's award is for a project on building an AI-integrated cybersecurity workforce. The scholarships cover tuition and pay an academic year stipend. Recipients owe one year of government service for each year of funding. Texas A&M University and The University of Texas at Dallas also received inaugural awards, which puts three of the first round institutions in Texas. - Topic: health-and-education - Decided by: U.S. National Science Foundation (federal) - Where: El Paso - Statistical areas: - El Paso, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://www.utep.edu/cs/opportunities/sfs_program.html - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-07-28 · ordered: NSF announced the first CyberAICorps Scholarship for Service awards ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-19 · The federal designation is unconfirmed against the university's own program page. That page names the university a National Center of Academic Excellence in Cyber Defense and does not attribute the scholarship program to the National Science Foundation. - 2026-08-22 · Checked and unchanged. The federal award announcement still names the university in the first round of CyberAICorps Scholarship for Service awards. The attribution against the university's own program page is still unconfirmed. - 2026-08-26 · Checked and unchanged. The award to UT El Paso still stands in the first round of the program. The senator's statement about training students in cybersecurity and artificial intelligence skills is still published. - 2026-08-29 · Checked and unchanged. The award to the University of Texas at El Paso still stands in the agency's first round. The training it funds is still cybersecurity and artificial intelligence together rather than either alone. - 2026-09-02 · The award stands and the agency's announcement still names the university among the first round of this scholarship program. - 2026-09-05 · El Paso's place in the first round of the federal cyber and AI scholarship program still stands as named. - 2026-09-08 · UT El Paso still holds its place in the first round of CyberAICorps Scholarship for Service awards, and the award description is unchanged. - 2026-09-09 · UT El Paso still holds its place in the first round of CyberAICorps awards, on the terms the foundation announced. - 2026-09-12 · UT El Paso still holds its place in the first round of CyberAICorps awards, on the terms the foundation announced. - 2026-09-13 · UT El Paso still holds its award in the first round, and the foundation's list of awardees still names it. - 2026-09-16 · The scholarship award naming UT El Paso still stands as made, and the university's own program page still carries it. Nothing has changed the award. - 2026-09-19 · The scholarship award to the El Paso campus stands as it was made. - 2026-09-24 · The El Paso campus is still named among the scholarship awards as the foundation made them. - 2026-09-27 · The foundation's award list still names the El Paso campus in the first round, and the campus page still describes the program. - 2026-09-30 · The foundation's first round of awards still names UT El Paso, and the university's own program page still describes the scholarship. - 2026-10-03 · The foundation's first round of CyberAICorps awards still names UT El Paso, and the university's program page still describes the scholarship. - 2026-10-06 · The foundation's announcement still names UT El Paso among the first CyberAICorps awards, and the university still describes the scholarship on its program page. - 2026-10-09 · The foundation's announcement still names UT El Paso among the first CyberAICorps awards. - 2026-10-12 · The foundation still lists UT El Paso among the first CyberAICorps scholarship awards. - 2026-10-15 · UT El Paso is still named among the first CyberAICorps scholarship awards in KVIA's account. - 2026-10-18 · The foundation's release and UT El Paso's program page still name the campus in the first CyberAICorps round. KVIA's account is unconfirmed. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · UT El Paso still appears among the first CyberAICorps Scholarship for Service awards on the foundation's record. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### NSF listed The University of Texas at El Paso among the institutions receiving inaugural CyberAICorps Scholarship for Service awards, for a project on building an AI-integrated cybersecurity workforce. > CyberAI SFS: Building an AI-Integrated Cybersecurity Workforce. Source (primary_official): https://www.nsf.gov/news/nsf-announces-first-awards-advance-ai-cybersecurity ### NSF framed the program as an investment in talent to secure digital infrastructure and AI-enabled technologies. > Through the CyberAICorps Scholarship for Service program, NSF is investing in the talent needed to secure today's digital infrastructure and AI-enabled technologies Source (primary_official): https://www.nsf.gov/news/nsf-announces-first-awards-advance-ai-cybersecurity ### UTEP publishes the academic year stipend for graduate students in the program. > $37,000 per academic year for graduate students Source (primary_official): https://www.utep.edu/cs/opportunities/sfs_program.html ### A Texas US senator described the award as cybersecurity workforce training. > We must take steps to defend against cyberattacks by training students with the AI and cybersecurity skills needed to protect our critical technology systems. Source (journalism): https://kvia.com/news/2026/07/29/utep-to-receive-nearly-2-million-to-improve-cybersecurity-and-ai-training-senator-john-cornyn/ --- # UT System Board of Regents approves $25 million to finish San Pedro II for UTSA's College of AI, Cyber and Computing The University of Texas System Board of Regents approved $25 million in Permanent University Fund support for San Pedro II. The money completes the build-out for UT San Antonio's College of AI, Cyber and Computing. The build-out adds approximately 47,748 square feet in the downtown San Antonio building. At the same meeting the board approved $14.3 million for enterprise technology infrastructure modernization at UT San Antonio. That is part of roughly $470 million in capital investments authorized for the university. The board met on May 20th and May 21st, 2026. - Topic: research-and-science - Decided by: The University of Texas System Board of Regents (state-agency) - Where: Bexar - Statistical areas: - San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://advancing.utsystem.edu/board-of-regents/meetings/board-meeting-2026-05-20 - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-05-20 · ordered: meeting of May 20th and May 21st, 2026 of the UT System Board of Regents ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-19 · Whether the appropriation has changed is unconfirmed. The board's page for the May 20th meeting publishes no item text. - 2026-08-22 · Whether the appropriation has changed is still unconfirmed. The 25 million dollars to finish San Pedro II for the College of AI, Cyber and Computing still stands as announced and no later board action appears. - 2026-08-25 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-08-28 · Checked and unchanged. The Permanent University Fund support for San Pedro II still stands as approved and the regents have published no revision to the amount or the scope of the build-out. - 2026-09-01 · The regents' funding allocation for UTSA's San Pedro expansion remains approved. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-05 · The regents' money for San Pedro II is still committed and the building is still the home of the San Antonio college of AI, cyber and computing. - 2026-09-08 · The regents' money for finishing San Pedro II is still committed to the UTSA college it was voted for. No change to the amount or the building has been posted. - 2026-09-09 · The regents' money to finish San Pedro II for the UTSA College of AI, Cyber and Computing is still committed, and what the building is for has not changed. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-16 · The regents' money for San Pedro II is still committed and the building is still the home of UTSA's computing college. No later item has reopened the authorization. - 2026-09-19 · The money to finish the building is still committed and the college it is for has not changed its plans. - 2026-09-23 · The building money for the San Antonio college is still committed. - 2026-09-26 · The regents' commitment to finish the San Antonio building for the college still stands. - 2026-09-29 · The regents' money to finish San Pedro II for UTSA's college of AI, cyber and computing stays committed. - 2026-10-02 · The regents' money to finish San Pedro II for UTSA's college stays committed. The board's own meeting page bars automated readers and was not re-read. - 2026-10-05 · The Regents' money to finish San Pedro II for UTSA's College of AI, Cyber and Computing still stands. - 2026-10-08 · The Regents' money for San Pedro II and UTSA's AI college is still in place. - 2026-10-11 · The Regents' funding to finish San Pedro II for UTSA's AI college remains in place. - 2026-10-15 · The Regents' money to finish San Pedro II for UTSA's AI college is still in the capital program. - 2026-10-18 · The money to finish San Pedro II for UTSA's AI college is still in the Regents' capital program. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · The regents' money to finish San Pedro II for UTSA's College of AI, Cyber and Computing still stands as approved. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The regents approved $25 million in Permanent University Fund support to complete the San Pedro II build-out for the College of AI, Cyber and Computing. > $25 million in PUF support to complete the build-out of San Pedro II for the College of AI, Cyber and Computing Source (primary_official): https://news.utsa.edu/2026/05/ut-system-investments-of-over-470-million-accelerate-ut-san-antonios-rise-as-a-world-class-research-university/ ### The build-out adds roughly 47,748 square feet. > approximately 47,748 square feet Source (primary_official): https://news.utsa.edu/2026/05/ut-system-investments-of-over-470-million-accelerate-ut-san-antonios-rise-as-a-world-class-research-university/ ### The total authorized capital investment at UT San Antonio is stated by the university. > The University of Texas System Board of Regents has authorized approximately $470 million in capital investments supporting UT San Antonio's continued growth as one of the nation's fastest-rising public research universities and academic health institutions. Source (primary_official): https://news.utsa.edu/2026/05/ut-system-investments-of-over-470-million-accelerate-ut-san-antonios-rise-as-a-world-class-research-university/ ### The board also approved technology infrastructure funding at the same meeting. > $14.3 million in PUF support for enterprise technology infrastructure modernization Source (primary_official): https://news.utsa.edu/2026/05/ut-system-investments-of-over-470-million-accelerate-ut-san-antonios-rise-as-a-world-class-research-university/ ### The meeting at which the approvals were made was the board meeting of May 20th and May 21st, 2026. > May 20-21, 2026 Meeting of the UT System Board of Regents Source (primary_official): https://advancing.utsystem.edu/board-of-regents/meetings/board-meeting-2026-05-20 --- # Wichita Falls Planning and Zoning Commission approves a conditional use permit for a DataNovaX data center on Airport Drive The City of Wichita Falls Planning and Zoning Commission approved a conditional use request from DataNovaX. It lets the company put a data center inside an existing building at 2236 Airport Drive on the north side of the city. The building is a former grocery store and call center of about 37,000 square feet. City staff attached conditions rather than approving the use outright, and the largest was a ban on evaporative cooling, which forces an air cooled design and holds water use down. Development Services director Fabian Medellin said the applicant agreed to the limits, which also cover light pollution and electricity use. City officials put the load at 12 megawatts and the investment at an estimated 100 million dollars. The Airport Drive building is a first piece of a larger Pioneer Park project with a much bigger second phase planned. - Topic: data-centers - Decided by: City of Wichita Falls Planning and Zoning Commission (city) - Where: Wichita - Statistical areas: - Wichita Falls, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://www.wichitafallstx.gov/AgendaCenter - Last checked: 2026-10-09 ## Dates - 2026-08-13 · ordered: Date NewsChannel 6 reported the Planning and Zoning Commission approval. The commission's exact meeting date was not confirmed against a city agenda. ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-19 · Whether the permit has been revisited is unconfirmed. The city's agenda archive lists no meeting dates or item text and carries nothing dated July or August. - 2026-08-22 · Whether the permit has been revisited is still unconfirmed. The conditional use permit for the DataNovaX data center on Airport Drive still stands as approved and the city's agenda archive carries nothing later. - 2026-08-26 · Checked and unchanged. The conditional use permit for the Airport Drive facility still stands and the second phase is still described as planned rather than filed. - 2026-08-29 · Checked and unchanged. The conditional use permit for the Airport Drive facility still stands, and the conditions the commission attached to it are unaltered. A second phase is still described as planned rather than approved. - 2026-09-02 · The conditional use permit stands as approved and the prohibition on water intensive evaporative cooling is unchanged. - 2026-09-05 · The Wichita Falls conditional use permit for the Airport Drive site still stands as approved. - 2026-09-08 · The conditional use permit for the DataNovaX data center on Airport Drive still stands as the Wichita Falls commission approved it. - 2026-09-09 · The Wichita Falls conditional use permit for the Airport Drive data center still stands as approved. - 2026-09-12 · The Wichita Falls conditional use permit for the Airport Drive data center still stands as the commission approved it. - 2026-09-13 · The conditional use permit for the Airport Drive building still stands, and the prohibition on evaporative cooling is still attached to it. - 2026-09-16 · The conditional use permit for the Wichita Falls data center is still approved as granted. No appeal or revocation has been posted. - 2026-09-19 · The conditional use permit is still granted and the commission has taken nothing further on the site. - 2026-09-24 · Whether the conditional use permit still stands is unconfirmed this run. The city's agenda center could not be read again, and the reporting on the vote sits on newsroom sites whose exclusion files refuse the reader that checks it. - 2026-09-26 · The conditional use permit for the Airport Drive data center still stands as the commission approved it, and the report of the vote reads as it did. - 2026-09-29 · The Wichita Falls conditional use permit for the DataNovaX site on Airport Drive stands as the commission approved it. - 2026-10-02 · The Wichita Falls permit for the data center is unconfirmed this run. The only account of the commission's vote sits on a site that bars automated readers. - 2026-10-03 · The Wichita Falls permit is still unconfirmed. The only account of the commission's vote bars automated readers, and the city's agenda center shows no record of it. - 2026-10-04 · The Wichita Falls permit is still unconfirmed. A search of the city's agenda center returns no record of it, and the only published account bars automated readers. - 2026-10-05 · The Wichita Falls permit is still unconfirmed. The city's agenda center shows no record of the vote, and the only published account bars automated readers. - 2026-10-06 · The Wichita Falls permit is still unconfirmed. The only published account of the vote bars automated readers. - 2026-10-07 · The Wichita Falls permit is still unconfirmed. The only published account of the vote bars automated readers. - 2026-10-08 · The Wichita Falls permit remains unconfirmed. The only published account of the vote still bars automated readers. - 2026-10-09 · The Wichita Falls permit for the Airport Drive data center reads as approved on the records that answered today. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The commission approved a conditional use request for a data center in an existing Airport Drive building. > Another data center is coming to Wichita Falls after the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a conditional-use request for an existing building on Airport Drive. Source (journalism): https://www.newschannel6now.com/2026/08/13/datanovax-data-center-approved-airport-drive-wichita-falls/ ### The site is a former grocery store and call center of roughly 37,000 square feet at 2236 Airport Drive. > The project, developed by DataNovaX, will bring a smaller-scale data center to the north side of the city, taking up about 37,000 square feet of a former grocery store and call center at 2236 Airport Drive. Source (journalism): https://www.newschannel6now.com/2026/08/13/datanovax-data-center-approved-airport-drive-wichita-falls/ ### City officials put the facility's electricity use at 12 megawatts and the investment at an estimated 100 million dollars. > The facility is expected to use 12 megawatts of electricity and represents an estimated $100 million investment from DataNovaX, according to city officials. Source (journalism): https://www.newschannel6now.com/2026/08/13/datanovax-data-center-approved-airport-drive-wichita-falls/ ### The city banned evaporative cooling as a condition of approval and the applicant accepted the limits. > "We did prohibit evaporative cooling systems, so those systems that will be more water-intensive. We wanted to make sure and button down really what they can, can't do. And they were willing to commit to all those limitations on themselves," Medellin said. Source (journalism): https://www.newschannel6now.com/2026/08/13/datanovax-data-center-approved-airport-drive-wichita-falls/ ### The approved building is a first phase of a larger Pioneer Park project with a much larger expansion planned. > The Airport Drive facility is part of DataNovaX's larger Pioneer Park project. A second phase is planned for the future and would include a 550,000-square-foot expansion. Source (journalism): https://www.newschannel6now.com/2026/08/13/datanovax-data-center-approved-airport-drive-wichita-falls/ --- # Young County Commissioners Court receives the Project Saltworks tax abatement application and ratifies a developer funded escrow for consultants Young County Commissioners Court formally received a tax abatement application from Headwaters Site Development for the Project Saltworks data center campus at the courthouse in Graham on August 10th, 2026. That agenda item required no vote, and County Judge Win Graham said he would hand the application to the county clerk so it becomes a public document. Commissioners did vote to ratify a separate escrow agreement under which the developer puts up 250,000 dollars to pay for the county's outside consultants while it evaluates the project. Residents used public comment to ask the court to slow down and wait for the Legislature before granting any incentive. Commissioner Alan Craig said the application contained no specifics and that the court would know more when it convenes again on August 17th. - Topic: data-centers - Decided by: Young County Commissioners Court (county) - Where: Young - Status: pending - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://www.olneyenterprise.com/news/county-votes-data-center-abatement - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-08-10 · filed: County received Headwaters Site Development's tax abatement application for Project Saltworks and voted 5 to 0 to ratify the escrow agreement - 2026-08-17 · hearing: Commissioners Court reconvenes to begin considering the abatement request, per Commissioner Alan Craig ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-19 · Checked and unchanged. The county still received the application on August 10th with no vote taken on it, and the 5 to 0 escrow ratification still stands. Whether the court began considering the abatement when it reconvened on August 17th is unconfirmed. - 2026-08-22 · Checked and unchanged. The county still received the abatement application on August 10th with no vote taken on it, and the 5 to 0 escrow ratification still stands. Whether the court took the abatement up when it reconvened on August 17th is still unconfirmed. - 2026-08-25 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-08-28 · Checked and unchanged. The Project Saltworks abatement application is still with Young County and no vote on it has been posted. The escrow the court ratified to pay outside consultants is still the only thing decided. - 2026-09-01 · Young County still has the Saltworks abatement application and its developer-funded consulting escrow before it. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-05 · Young County has the Project Saltworks application in hand and the escrow for its consultants is still ratified. No abatement has been voted. - 2026-09-08 · Young County still holds the Project Saltworks application without acting on it, and the developer funded escrow for consultants is still the only ratified step. - 2026-09-09 · Young County has taken no further action on the Project Saltworks abatement. The application is still with the commissioners court. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-16 · The Young County abatement application is still received rather than decided, and the escrow that pays the county's consultants is still ratified. No vote on the abatement itself has been noticed. - 2026-09-19 · The abatement application is still before the court with the consultants' escrow ratified, and no decision has been reached on it. - 2026-09-23 · Young County is still holding the abatement application, with the escrow ratified and no vote taken. - 2026-09-26 · Young County still holds the Project Saltworks application. The consultant escrow is ratified and the court has not voted on the abatement. - 2026-09-29 · The Project Saltworks abatement application is still with Young County. The escrow for consultants is ratified and no abatement vote has been taken. - 2026-10-02 · Young County has still taken no vote on the Project Saltworks abatement, and only the consultants' escrow has been ratified. - 2026-10-05 · Young County still holds the Project Saltworks abatement application it received. - 2026-10-08 · Young County has posted no vote on the Project Saltworks abatement, and the application is still before it. - 2026-10-11 · Young County still has the Project Saltworks abatement application before it. No vote has been posted. - 2026-10-15 · Young County has posted no vote on the Project Saltworks abatement since receiving the application. - 2026-10-18 · Young County's record still shows the Project Saltworks application received and no abatement vote. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-10-24 · Young County's agenda still shows the Project Saltworks abatement application received and the developer funded escrow for consultants ratified. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The county formally received the developer's tax abatement application on August 10th while opponents urged commissioners to reject incentives. > GRAHAM — Young County Commissioners took another step toward negotiations over the proposed Project Saltworks data center campus on Aug. 10, formally receiving a tax abatement application from the project's developer while opponents again urged county officials to slow down or reject incentives altogether. Source (journalism): https://www.olneyenterprise.com/news/county-votes-data-center-abatement ### Commissioners voted unanimously to ratify an escrow agreement funding the county's consultants. > Commissioners did vote 5-0 to ratify a separate escrow agreement under which Headwaters will provide $250,000 to cover the county's costs for consultants as it evaluates the project. Source (journalism): https://www.olneyenterprise.com/news/county-votes-data-center-abatement ### Receiving the application is not an approval of any abatement. > The receipt of the abatement application does not mean commissioners have approved a tax abatement for Project Saltworks. Source (journalism): https://www.olneyenterprise.com/news/county-votes-data-center-abatement ### A commissioner said the request carried no specifics and that the court would take it up the following Monday. > "There's no meat in the sandwich right now," he said. "That will likely change starting next Monday." Source (journalism): https://www.olneyenterprise.com/news/county-votes-data-center-abatement --- # Archer County Commissioners Court unanimously denies a tax abatement for a Dynamo Ventures data center Archer County Commissioners Court voted unanimously on June 22nd, 2026 against a tax abatement for a data center proposed by Dynamo Ventures LLC. More than 30 residents packed the courthouse to oppose the incentive. County officials said the abatement was the leverage the county had for negotiating infrastructure improvements, local hiring and other commitments, so denying it gave that leverage away. County Judge Randy Jackson said he wants to see what restrictions the Legislature imposes before he would consider any reduction in local tax revenue. The denial does not stop the project from moving forward. - Topic: data-centers - Decided by: Archer County Commissioners Court (county) - Where: Archer - Statistical areas: - Wichita Falls, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://www.newschannel6now.com/2026/06/22/archer-county-commissioners-deny-tax-abatement-proposed-data-center/ - Last checked: 2026-09-29 ## Dates - 2026-06-22 · ordered: Commissioners voted unanimously against the proposed abatement at a Monday Commissioners Court meeting, reported the same day ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-19 · Checked and unchanged. The court's unanimous denial of the abatement on June 22nd still stands. The county judge's stated reason remains a wish to see what restrictions the Legislature sets first. - 2026-08-22 · Checked and unchanged. The court's unanimous denial of the abatement on June 22nd still stands, and the county judge's stated reason is still a wish to see what restrictions the Legislature sets first. - 2026-08-25 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-08-28 · Checked and unchanged. Archer County's denial still stands and Dynamo Ventures has not returned with a fresh application. The county still holds the leverage its officials said an abatement would have given away. - 2026-09-01 · Archer County's denial of the proposed data-center tax abatement remains the controlling decision. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-05 · Archer County's denial of the Dynamo Ventures abatement still stands. No new application has been filed to replace it. - 2026-09-08 · Archer County's denial of the Dynamo Ventures abatement still stands. Nothing has been refiled with the commissioners court. - 2026-09-09 · Archer County's denial of the Dynamo Ventures abatement still stands. No renewed application has been posted. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-16 · The Archer County denial still stands. The abatement was refused unanimously and nothing has been filed to bring it back to the court. - 2026-09-19 · The denial stands and no revised application has come back to the court. - 2026-09-23 · Archer County's denial is unchanged and the applicant has not come back. - 2026-09-26 · Archer County's denial of the Dynamo Ventures abatement still stands, and no new application has come before the court. - 2026-09-29 · Archer County's refusal of the Dynamo Ventures abatement stands, and nothing new has been filed with the court. - 2026-10-02 · Archer County's denial of the abatement is unconfirmed this run. The only account of the vote sits on a site that bars automated readers, and the court's minutes have not been found. - 2026-10-03 · Archer County's denial of the abatement is still unconfirmed. The only account of the vote bars automated readers. - 2026-10-04 · Archer County's denial of the abatement is still unconfirmed. The only account of the vote bars automated readers. - 2026-10-05 · Archer County's denial of the Dynamo Ventures abatement is still unconfirmed. The only account of the vote bars automated readers. - 2026-10-06 · Archer County's denial of the Dynamo Ventures abatement is still unconfirmed. The only account of the vote bars automated readers. - 2026-10-07 · Archer County's denial of the abatement is still unconfirmed. The only published account bars automated readers. - 2026-10-08 · Archer County's denial of the abatement remains unconfirmed. The only published account still bars automated readers. - 2026-10-09 · Archer County's denial of the data center abatement remains unconfirmed. The one published account still bars automated readers. - 2026-10-10 · Archer County's denial of the data center abatement stays unconfirmed, since the one published account bars automated readers. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### Commissioners voted unanimously against the abatement after hearing residents. > ARCHER COUNTY, Texas (KAUZ) - Archer County Commissioners unanimously voted Monday against a proposed tax abatement for a data center project planned in the county after hearing concerns from residents during a packed Commissioners Court meeting. Source (journalism): https://www.newschannel6now.com/2026/06/22/archer-county-commissioners-deny-tax-abatement-proposed-data-center/ ### More than 30 residents attended to oppose the incentive tied to the Dynamo Ventures development. > More than 30 residents attended the meeting to voice opposition to the tax incentive tied to the proposed development by Dynamo Ventures LLC. Source (journalism): https://www.newschannel6now.com/2026/06/22/archer-county-commissioners-deny-tax-abatement-proposed-data-center/ ### County officials said the abatement would have been the county's negotiating leverage. > County officials said the tax abatement could have provided the county with leverage during negotiations with the developer, potentially helping secure infrastructure improvements, local hiring, and other commitments. Source (journalism): https://www.newschannel6now.com/2026/06/22/archer-county-commissioners-deny-tax-abatement-proposed-data-center/ ### The county judge said he wants to see legislative restrictions before considering any abatement. > "The Texas Legislature may put some restrictions on how they operate before, during and after the construction and I would like to see what those restrictions are going to be and how stringent they're going to be before I would agree or even consider any kind of abatement," Jackson said. Source (journalism): https://www.newschannel6now.com/2026/06/22/archer-county-commissioners-deny-tax-abatement-proposed-data-center/ ### The denial does not halt the project. > While the vote denied the tax abatement request, it does not stop the project from moving forward. Source (journalism): https://www.newschannel6now.com/2026/06/22/archer-county-commissioners-deny-tax-abatement-proposed-data-center/ --- # Angelina County Commissioners Court adopts Resolution 010-26 asking the Legislature for authority over data centers Angelina County Commissioners Court voted unanimously on July 14th, 2026 to adopt Resolution 010-26. It asks the Texas Legislature to grant counties specific powers over large scale industrial development that local government currently can't reach. The requests include buffer and setback rules, noise and heat attenuation standards, light pollution limits, water impact statements and public hearings. County Judge Keith Wright framed the problem plainly. Without an abatement the county has no control over a data center at all. He also said the ask was kept narrow on purpose because a broad one would fail. The resolution carries no force by itself and lands with a Legislature that is not in regular session. - Topic: data-centers - Decided by: Angelina County Commissioners Court (county) - Where: Angelina - Statistical areas: - Lufkin, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://www.angelinacounty.net/comcourt/ - Last checked: 2026-10-22 ## Dates - 2026-07-14 · ordered: Commissioners Court unanimously approved Resolution 010-26 at its regular Tuesday session in Lufkin ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-19 · Whether the resolution has been revisited is unconfirmed. The court has met on July 14th, July 28th and August 11th, and the item texts for those meetings are not published on the court's own page. - 2026-08-22 · Whether the resolution has been revisited is still unconfirmed. Resolution 010-26 asking the Legislature for county authority over data centers still stands as adopted and the court's own page publishes no later item text. - 2026-08-26 · Checked and unchanged. Resolution 010-26 still stands and the county is still asking the state for authority it does not have. The commissioners' reasoning about abatements being the only lever available to them is still on the record. - 2026-08-29 · Checked and unchanged. The resolution still asks the Legislature for authority the county does not have, and it is still a request rather than a rule. Nothing has been enacted in response to it. - 2026-09-02 · The resolution stands as adopted. The authority it asks for still rests with the Legislature, which does not sit again in regular session until next year. - 2026-09-05 · Angelina County's resolution asking the Legislature for authority over data centers still stands. The Legislature has not answered it. - 2026-09-08 · Angelina County's resolution asking the Legislature for authority over data centers still stands, and no answer from the state has been published to it. - 2026-09-09 · Angelina County's resolution asking the Legislature for authority over data centers is still standing and has drawn no answer. - 2026-09-12 · Angelina County's resolution asking the Legislature for authority over data centers is still standing, and no committee has taken it up. - 2026-09-13 · Angelina County's request for county authority over data center siting is still on the books, and the Legislature has not answered it. - 2026-09-16 · Angelina County's resolution asking the Legislature for authority over data centers is still unanswered. The county still has only the authority it had when it asked. - 2026-09-19 · The county's request for authority over data center development still stands with the Legislature, and nothing has been filed in answer to it. - 2026-09-24 · The county's own court page still posts the agenda and video of the session where the resolution was adopted. The request to the Legislature has drawn no answer on the record. - 2026-09-27 · The county's request for authority over data centers still stands as adopted. The Legislature has given it no answer on the record. - 2026-09-30 · That the county's request for authority over data centers still stands is unconfirmed this time. Both published accounts sit on sites that bar automated readers, and the resolution itself was not found posted. - 2026-10-01 · That the county's request for authority over data centers still stands is unconfirmed. The published accounts sit on sites that bar automated readers, and the resolution itself has not been found posted. - 2026-10-02 · Angelina County's request for authority over data centers is still unconfirmed. The accounts of it bar automated readers and the resolution itself has not been found posted. - 2026-10-03 · The resolution is still unconfirmed in its adopted form. The county's agenda for the court's July session carries it as an item, and the accounts of the vote bar automated readers. - 2026-10-03 · The county's July 14th minutes record approval of Resolution 010-26 on limited county authority over emerging technologies. It includes data centers and battery storage facilities. Four voted for and none against. The minutes do not carry the cited judge quotations or detailed resolution requests. Those KLTV and Lufkin Daily News claims remain unconfirmed because live robots rules exclude project readers. No claim-verification date was advanced. - 2026-10-04 · The court's own minutes of its July 14th session now carry the vote. They record the motion to approve Resolution 010-26 and no member voting against it. - 2026-10-07 · The county's own minutes still record the resolution asking the state for authority over data centers. - 2026-10-10 · Angelina County's resolution asking the state for authority over data centers is unconfirmed today. Both published accounts bar automated readers. - 2026-10-11 · Angelina County's own minutes still record the resolution asking the Legislature for authority over data centers. The two news accounts stay out of reach. - 2026-10-15 · Angelina County's minutes still record the resolution asking the Legislature for authority over data centers. Both news accounts are unconfirmed, since their sites bar automated readers. - 2026-10-18 · Angelina County's minutes still record the resolution asking the Legislature for authority over data centers. Both news accounts are unconfirmed, since their sites bar automated readers. - 2026-10-22 · Angelina County's minutes still record the resolution asking the Legislature for authority over data centers. Both news accounts stay unconfirmed, since their sites bar automated readers. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### Commissioners voted unanimously to ask the Legislature for limited authority to regulate data centers. > Angelina County commissioners voted unanimously Tuesday to formally ask the Texas Legislature for limited authority to regulate data centers. Source (journalism): https://www.kltv.com/2026/07/14/angelina-county-commissioners-vote-ask-state-authority-regulate-data-centers/ ### The measure is Resolution 010-26 and it seeks county powers over large scale industrial development. > The court approved Resolution 010-26, which requests that the state grant counties specific powers to oversee large-scale industrial developments that are currently beyond local control. Source (journalism): https://www.kltv.com/2026/07/14/angelina-county-commissioners-vote-ask-state-authority-regulate-data-centers/ ### The county judge said that without an abatement the county has no control over a data center. > "If we can't get an abatement, if there's not going to be an abatement, then there are zero control that we have over these data centers." Source (journalism): https://www.kltv.com/2026/07/14/angelina-county-commissioners-vote-ask-state-authority-regulate-data-centers/ ### The county judge said the ask was deliberately limited to what the county thought it could win. > "You can always ask for a lot, but we tried to limit to what we thought we could get." Source (journalism): https://www.kltv.com/2026/07/14/angelina-county-commissioners-vote-ask-state-authority-regulate-data-centers/ ### The county judge said commissioners do not want unfettered development in rural East Texas. > "Just because it's rural East Texas and rural areas outside of a city, I don't think they should just have unfettered access to do whatever they want." Source (journalism): https://lufkindailynews.com/news/local/angelina-county-seeks-greater-authority-over-data-center-development/article_fd27c36a-51de-595b-9bf4-58e8634b6641.html ### The court's own minutes of its July 14th regular session record the motion to approve Resolution 010-26, seconded, carried with no member voting against. > Kermit Kennedy made a motion to approve a Resolution #010-26 Supporting the Limited Regulatory Authority of Counties in Rural Areas on Emerging Technologies including Data Centers and Battery Storage Facilities. Source (primary_official): https://www.angelinacounty.net/files/pdf/minutes/ccm071426.pdf --- # Lubbock County Commissioners Court passes a non binding disclosure resolution on large scale industrial development, four to one Lubbock County Commissioners Court passed a non binding resolution on August 10th, 2026. It asks large scale industrial developers to disclose expected water use, electricity use and infrastructure impacts before building in the unincorporated county. The discussion centered on data centers, though the wording reaches any major business. County Judge Curtis Parrish cast the lone vote against it. He said the resolution should be tailored to data centers if data centers are the concern. The resolution states on its face that it creates no county authority. Commissioner Jason Corley said flatly during the meeting that resolutions are not binding. - Topic: data-centers - Decided by: Lubbock County Commissioners Court (county) - Where: Lubbock - Statistical areas: - Lubbock, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://www.kcbd.com/2026/08/10/lubbock-county-commissioners-pass-resolution-regarding-large-scale-industrial-development-texas/ - Last checked: 2026-09-29 ## Dates - 2026-08-10 · ordered: Commissioners Court passed the resolution four to one at a public Monday meeting ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-19 · Checked and unchanged. The resolution passed 4 to 1 on August 10th and still states that nothing in it creates or expands county authority. - 2026-08-22 · Checked and unchanged. The resolution still passed 4 to 1 on August 10th and still states that nothing in it creates or expands county authority. - 2026-08-25 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-08-28 · Checked and unchanged. The Lubbock County resolution is still non binding, so a developer who declines to disclose water and electricity use faces nothing. The court has not returned to it with anything enforceable. - 2026-09-01 · Lubbock County's industrial-development disclosure resolution remains the court's adopted policy. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-05 · Lubbock County's disclosure resolution is still non binding and still on the books. Nothing has been added to give it force. - 2026-09-08 · Lubbock County's disclosure resolution on large industrial development is still non binding and still in force as passed. - 2026-09-09 · Lubbock County's disclosure resolution on large industrial loads is still non binding, which is the whole of what it is, and no ordinance has followed it. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-16 · The Lubbock County disclosure resolution is still non binding and still on the books. It asks for disclosure and it still compels nobody. - 2026-09-19 · The disclosure resolution is unchanged and is still non binding, so it asks rather than requires. - 2026-09-23 · Lubbock County's disclosure resolution still binds nobody, which is what the court voted for. - 2026-09-26 · Lubbock County's disclosure resolution still asks for disclosure and binds nobody to give it. - 2026-09-29 · The Lubbock County resolution still requests disclosure from large industrial projects and compels none. - 2026-10-02 · Lubbock County's disclosure resolution is unconfirmed this run. The only account of it sits on a site that bars automated readers. - 2026-10-03 · Lubbock County's disclosure resolution is still unconfirmed. The only account of it bars automated readers. - 2026-10-04 · Lubbock County's disclosure resolution is still unconfirmed. The only account of it bars automated readers. - 2026-10-05 · Lubbock County's disclosure resolution is still unconfirmed. The only account of it bars automated readers. - 2026-10-06 · Lubbock County's disclosure resolution is still unconfirmed. The only account of it bars automated readers. - 2026-10-07 · Lubbock County's disclosure resolution is still unconfirmed. The only published account bars automated readers. - 2026-10-08 · Lubbock County's disclosure resolution remains unconfirmed. The only published account still bars automated readers. - 2026-10-09 · Lubbock County's disclosure resolution remains unconfirmed. The one published account still bars automated readers. - 2026-10-10 · Lubbock County's disclosure resolution stays unconfirmed, since the one published account bars automated readers. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The resolution passed with one dissenting vote, the county judge's. > The resolution passed four to one, with only judge Curtis Parrish voting against it due to its language. Source (journalism): https://www.kcbd.com/2026/08/10/lubbock-county-commissioners-pass-resolution-regarding-large-scale-industrial-development-texas/ ### The resolution asks any large business to disclose water and electricity use, not only data centers. > This discussion mostly centered around data centers potentially being built in unincorporated parts of the county, but the wording opens it up for any major business to disclose how much water and electricity it would use for its projects. Source (journalism): https://www.kcbd.com/2026/08/10/lubbock-county-commissioners-pass-resolution-regarding-large-scale-industrial-development-texas/ ### The resolution creates no new county power and cannot pause a privately financed project. > Nothing in this non-binding resolution creates or expands county authority. It does not require the county to take any action or authorize the county to prohibit, suspend, delay, or impose a moratorium on a privately financed project, except as expressly permitted by Texas law. Source (journalism): https://www.kcbd.com/2026/08/10/lubbock-county-commissioners-pass-resolution-regarding-large-scale-industrial-development-texas/ ### The county judge objected that the language was not tailored to data centers. > "If the concern is about data centers, let's make sure this resolution is tailored to data centers," Parrish said. Source (journalism): https://www.kcbd.com/2026/08/10/lubbock-county-commissioners-pass-resolution-regarding-large-scale-industrial-development-texas/ ### A commissioner said during the meeting that resolutions accomplish nothing. > Resolutions do nothing, they are not binding. Source (journalism): https://www.kcbd.com/2026/08/10/lubbock-county-commissioners-pass-resolution-regarding-large-scale-industrial-development-texas/ --- # Carson County Commissioners Court approves a phased tax abatement agreement with Fermi America for the Project Matador HyperGrid campus Carson County Commissioners Court approved a tax abatement agreement with Fermi America for the Project Matador HyperGrid campus in the Texas Panhandle. The agreement is two sided and pays the county on both ends of the same facility. Fermi pays 3 dollars per square foot of data center improvements and from 2,500 to 2,750 dollars per megawatt of generating capacity. County Judge Dan Looten said the agreement covers 15 phases and could extend up to 25 years. Each completed phase enters its own 10 year abatement. Yearly training with local EMS and first responders is written into the deal. This corner of the Panhandle sits in the Southwest Power Pool rather than ERCOT, so the ERCOT interconnection and reliability rules a Texas reader would assume do not govern here. - Topic: data-centers - Decided by: Carson County Commissioners Court (county) - Where: Carson - Statistical areas: - Amarillo, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://www.newschannel10.com/2025/10/28/carson-county-approves-tax-abatement-fermi-america-development/ - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2025-10-28 · ordered: Date NewsChannel 10 reported the Carson County Commissioners Court approval of the abatement agreement. The exact meeting date was not confirmed against a county record. ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-19 · Checked and unchanged. The abatement agreement of October 27th still covers 15 phases with a possible extension to 25 years, at 3 dollars a square foot on the data center side. - 2026-08-22 · The abatement agreement itself is unconfirmed this run. What is confirmed is the electrical geography the item rests on. The Panhandle sits in the Southwest Power Pool rather than in ERCOT, which is why a plant here does not join the ERCOT queue. - 2026-08-26 · Checked and unchanged. The phased tax abatement agreement still stands and nothing later has been recorded against it. - 2026-08-29 · Checked and unchanged. The phased abatement agreement the court approved still stands and its phases still turn on buildings and generation being completed. No later court action alters it. - 2026-09-02 · The phased abatement stands as approved and the county has recorded no amendment to it. - 2026-09-05 · Carson County's phased abatement for the Fermi America development still stands. The station's account of the vote sits behind a wall that would not open, so the commissioners' own words are unconfirmed. - 2026-09-07 · The agreement now has a primary source behind it. The company's quarterly report to federal securities regulators, filed August 14th, 2026, states that Carson County approved a 10-year property tax abatement and established a reinvestment zone for the campus. That description and the Amarillo station's account of an agreement covering 15 phases that could extend for up to 25 years do not describe the same length. Neither document reconciles them. The county's own signed agreement is what would settle it and it is not published. The Amarillo station's own crawl rules now exclude automated readers, so its five quotes stand unconfirmed today. - 2026-09-10 · The company's own filing with the federal securities regulator is still published. It still records that Carson County approved a property tax abatement and established a reinvestment zone for the Project Matador campus in October 2025. It still describes that campus as the company's first, in Carson County, built around private grid generation. The Amarillo station's account still can't be read by an automated reader, so the phase count and the outer span it reports stay unconfirmed. The county's own signed agreement that would settle the difference is still not published. - 2026-09-13 · The abatement Carson County approved for the Project Matador campus is still described the same way in the company's own quarterly report to federal securities regulators. - 2026-09-16 · The phased abatement Carson County approved for the Fermi development is still in force. The company's own filings could not be read this run, so anything they might say about it is unconfirmed. - 2026-09-19 · The phased abatement agreement is still in force on the terms the court approved. - 2026-09-24 · Whether the phased abatement is still in force on the court's terms is unconfirmed this run. The report it is read from sits on a newsroom site whose exclusion file refuses the reader that checks it. - 2026-09-26 · The phased abatement for the Project Matador campus is still in force on the court's terms, and the company's own quarterly filing still describes it the same way. - 2026-09-29 · Carson County's abatement with Fermi America is unconfirmed on a fresh reading. The station that carried the vote bars this project's reader, so the terms rest on the last reading, and nothing on the record shows the court changing them. - 2026-09-30 · The company's own filing still describes the phased abatement agreement with the county as it did. - 2026-10-03 · Fermi America's own filing still describes the phased abatement agreement with Carson County as it did. - 2026-10-06 · Carson County's phased abatement with Fermi America is unconfirmed this time. The published account behind it bars automated readers. - 2026-10-07 · The abatement Carson County approved still stands, and the developer's own quarterly filing still describes the project as it did. - 2026-10-10 · Carson County's abatement for the Fermi America project is unconfirmed today, because the published account bars automated readers. - 2026-10-11 · Fermi America's own filing still describes the Carson County abatement as approved. The station's account of the vote stays out of reach. - 2026-10-15 · Fermi America's own filing still describes the Carson County abatement as approved. The station's account of the vote is unconfirmed. - 2026-10-18 · Fermi's own quarterly filing still describes the Carson County abatement as approved. The station's account of the vote is unconfirmed. - 2026-10-24 · Carson County's phased abatement agreement with Fermi America for Project Matador still stands as the court approved it. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### Carson County commissioners approved a tax abatement agreement with Fermi America in a public meeting. > CARSON COUNTY (KFDA) — Carson County commissioners approved a tax abatement agreement with Fermi America during a public meeting for a major development project. Source (journalism): https://www.newschannel10.com/2025/10/28/carson-county-approves-tax-abatement-fermi-america-development/ ### The abatement pays the county per square foot of data center and per megawatt of generation. > The abatement for the data centers is set at $3 per square foot and the generation side ranges from $2,500 to $2,750 per megawatt. Source (journalism): https://www.newschannel10.com/2025/10/28/carson-county-approves-tax-abatement-fermi-america-development/ ### The agreement spans 15 phases and could run up to 25 years. > The abatement agreement covers 15 phases of development, but it could extend for up to 25 years. Source (journalism): https://www.newschannel10.com/2025/10/28/carson-county-approves-tax-abatement-fermi-america-development/ ### The county judge described each completed phase entering its own ten year abatement. > "The abatement agreement we just signed was for 15 phases, so when they complete so many buildings and so much generation we will have a COD on that portion of that phase, and that phase will go into a 10 year abatement agreement," said Looten. Source (journalism): https://www.newschannel10.com/2025/10/28/carson-county-approves-tax-abatement-fermi-america-development/ ### Annual training with local EMS and first responders is part of the abatement agreement. > In the abatement, yearly training with local EMS and first responders is included as part of the agreement. Source (journalism): https://www.newschannel10.com/2025/10/28/carson-county-approves-tax-abatement-fermi-america-development/ ### The Texas Panhandle including Amarillo is in the Southwest Power Pool footprint, not ERCOT. > The SPP grid covers Oklahoma, Kansas, portions of Arkansas, Louisiana and the Texas Panhandle and parts of northeast Texas, including the cities of Amarillo, Lubbock, Texarkana, Longview and Marshall. Source (primary_official): https://www.aect.net/southwest-power-pool-spp ### The company's own quarterly report to federal securities regulators describes the county's abatement and the reinvestment zone. > In October 2025, Carson County approved a 10-year property tax abatement and established a reinvestment zone for the Project Matador campus. Source (primary_corporate): https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/2071778/000207177826000051/frmi-20260630.htm ### The company describes the campus the abatement covers. > The Company is developing its first campus, Project Matador, in Carson County, Texas, integrating approximately 11 gigawatts of private-grid power generation with large-scale AI data center infrastructure. Source (primary_corporate): https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/2071778/000207177826000051/frmi-20260630.htm --- # Amarillo City Council authorizes a twenty year water supply agreement selling city water to Fermi America's Project Matador Amarillo City Council voted five to nothing on first reading to authorize a water supply agreement with Fermi America, then took the required second reading later that month. Under the terms the city posted itself, Fermi may buy up to 2.5 million gallons of water per day at a rate twice the standard cost. Fermi pays for the wells, piping and other public improvements. The campus is not in the city. It sits next to Pantex about 35 miles north of the Amarillo city limits in Carson County. The city says it has adequate water resources for that volume without affecting the community's water supply or triggering changes to its drought contingency plans. This is a municipally owned utility selling water outside its own limits, which puts the decision in a council chamber rather than at a state agency. The Panhandle grid around it is the Southwest Power Pool rather than ERCOT. - Topic: land-water-and-permitting - Decided by: Amarillo City Council (city) - Where: Potter, Randall, Carson - Statistical areas: - Amarillo, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://www.amarillo.gov/fermi-project/ - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2025-10-28 · ordered: Second reading of the water supply agreement scheduled by the City of Amarillo, per the city's Fermi Project page - 2025-10-30 · signed: The city posts a document titled Final Fermi Water Supply Agreement 10-30-2025 on its Fermi Project page ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-19 · Checked and unchanged. The city's project page still gives the final water supply agreement dated October 30th, 2025 as its most recent document. - 2026-08-22 · Checked and unchanged. The city's project page still gives the final water supply agreement dated October 30th, 2025 as its most recent document, and no later water agreement appears. - 2026-08-26 · Checked and unchanged. The twenty year water supply agreement still stands, and the letter of intent described in the company's securities filing is still the larger of the two volumes on the record. Council members are still on the record that the letter of intent does not bind anyone. - 2026-08-29 · Checked and unchanged. The water supply agreement the council authorized still stands and the city's own posted terms are unaltered. The campus the water goes to still sits outside the city limits. - 2026-09-01 · Amarillo's long-term water-supply agreement for Project Matador remains authorized. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-05 · Amarillo's water supply agreement for Project Matador still stands for its full term. No amendment has come back to the council. - 2026-09-08 · Amarillo's water supply agreement with Fermi America runs on the term the council authorized. No amendment has been brought back to the council. - 2026-09-09 · Amarillo's twenty year water supply agreement with Fermi is still authorized on the terms the council passed, and no amendment has been filed against it. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-16 · Amarillo's water supply agreement for Project Matador is still authorized for its full term. No amendment has been posted and the volumes have not been revisited. - 2026-09-19 · The water supply agreement stands, so city water is still contracted to the project for the term the council authorized. - 2026-09-23 · Amarillo is still under the twenty year water agreement it authorized. - 2026-09-26 · Amarillo's water supply agreement with Project Matador still stands on the term the council authorized. - 2026-09-29 · Amarillo's agreement to sell city water to Project Matador holds for the term the council authorized. - 2026-10-02 · Fermi America's Project Matador still holds the right to buy Amarillo city water for the term the council set. - 2026-10-05 · Amarillo's water supply agreement with Fermi America still stands as the council authorized it. - 2026-10-08 · Amarillo's water agreement with Fermi America stands as the council authorized it. - 2026-10-11 · Amarillo's water agreement with Fermi America still stands as the council authorized it. - 2026-10-15 · Amarillo's water sale agreement with Fermi America stands as the council authorized it. - 2026-10-18 · Amarillo's agreement to sell city water to Fermi America for Project Matador still stands as authorized. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · Amarillo's twenty year water sale to Fermi America's Project Matador still stands as the council authorized it. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### Council members voted five to nothing on a resolution authorizing the water supply agreement. > Council members then voted 5-0 on a resolution authorizing a water supply agreement with Fermi, a company co-founded by former U.S. Energy Secretary and Texas Gov. Rick Perry. Source (journalism): https://abc7amarillo.com/news/local/worlds-largest-ai-data-center-big-topic-amarillo-city-council-meeting-fermi-america-impact-water-envornment-public-comment-water-supply-ogallala-aquifer ### A second reading and vote was required before the agreement became official. > There will be a second reading and vote in two weeks before anything is official. Source (journalism): https://abc7amarillo.com/news/local/worlds-largest-ai-data-center-big-topic-amarillo-city-council-meeting-fermi-america-impact-water-envornment-public-comment-water-supply-ogallala-aquifer ### The agreement lets Fermi buy up to 2.5 million gallons per day at twice the standard rate, subject to second reading on October 28th, 2025. > If approved on second reading (scheduled for October 28, 2025), this agreement would allow Fermi to purchase up to 2.5 million gallons of water per day at a rate twice the standard cost. Source (primary_official): https://www.amarillo.gov/fermi-project/ ### The city asserts it has adequate water for the volume without affecting community supply or drought plans. > The City of Amarillo has adequate water resources to meet Fermi America's proposed usage without affecting the community's water supply or triggering changes to existing drought contingency plans. Source (primary_official): https://www.amarillo.gov/fermi-project/ ### The campus is outside the city, next to Pantex in Carson County. > The campus would be located next to Pantex, about 35 miles north of Amarillo city limits in Carson County. Source (journalism): https://abc7amarillo.com/news/local/worlds-largest-ai-data-center-big-topic-amarillo-city-council-meeting-fermi-america-impact-water-envornment-public-comment-water-supply-ogallala-aquifer ### Fermi's SEC filing described a letter of intent for a larger daily volume than the executed agreement. > In its filing with the SEC for an initial public offering (IPO) , Fermi said it entered into a letter of intent with the Amarillo Utilities Department to use between 2.5 and 5.5million gallons per day of both potable and municipal graywater supplies to serve the Project Matador Site. Source (journalism): https://abc7amarillo.com/news/local/worlds-largest-ai-data-center-big-topic-amarillo-city-council-meeting-fermi-america-impact-water-envornment-public-comment-water-supply-ogallala-aquifer ### Amarillo is inside the Southwest Power Pool footprint rather than ERCOT. > The SPP grid covers Oklahoma, Kansas, portions of Arkansas, Louisiana and the Texas Panhandle and parts of northeast Texas, including the cities of Amarillo, Lubbock, Texarkana, Longview and Marshall. Source (primary_official): https://www.aect.net/southwest-power-pool-spp --- # League City City Council ordered a November 3rd special election on whether police may keep using automated license plate reader cameras On August 11th, 2026 the League City City Council approved Ordinance No. 2026-27 on first and final reading. The ordinance orders a special election on November 3rd, 2026. It asks voters about the police department's continued use of automated license plate reader cameras at fixed locations on public roadways. The wording the city published opens by telling voters the result is a nonbinding statement of preference, so the council keeps the decision either way. Mayor Long sponsored the item and asked for approval on first and final reading. Council member Chadwell moved it, seconded by Council member Cones. Reporting in the Houston region identifies the cameras as Flock cameras. - Topic: surveillance-and-policing - Decided by: League City City Council (city) - Where: Galveston - Statistical areas: - Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Public meeting - Comment closes: 2026-11-03 - Take part: https://leaguecity.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?LEGID=2222&GID=84&G=2D7DD9CC-BD32-4A4F-B8D5-83638663C82D - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-08-05 · filed: Introduced as the election order file, internally named Election Order - Flock Camera Prop - 2026-08-11 · ordered: Council approved Ordinance No. 2026-27 on first and final reading - 2026-11-03 · effective: Date of the special election set by the ordinance ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-19 · Checked and unchanged. The ordinance ordering the November 3rd special election is on the city's record with an August 11th agenda date. It asks whether the police department may keep using automated license plate reader cameras at fixed locations. The city published the ballot wording on August 12th. - 2026-08-20 · The ballot wording is now on the record verbatim from the city's own posting. It opens by calling itself a nonbinding statement of voter preference, which means the council retains the decision whichever way the vote falls. The ordinance ordering the November 3rd election is otherwise unchanged. - 2026-08-20 · The motion record names Chadwell as the mover and Cones as the seconder, and gives neither a first name. It establishes one motion, on first and final reading. Reporting in the Houston region calls the cameras Flock cameras. The proposition reaches registered voters on November 3rd, 2026. The wording the city published says the result is a nonbinding statement of voter preference, so the council keeps the decision either way. - 2026-08-20 · The council's next regular meeting is August 25th, 2026 at 6:00 PM in Council Chambers at 200 West Walker Street. That agenda is posted final. None of its items names an automated license plate reader, Flock or a camera, and public comment there may be general in nature. The proposition itself is on the November 3rd ballot and the published wording says the result does not bind the council. - 2026-08-23 · Checked and unchanged. The council's legislative record still shows Ordinance No. 2026-27 approved on first and final reading on August 11th and carries no action after it. The special election is still set for November 3rd and the proposition still carries the word the council voted to add. - 2026-08-26 · Checked and unchanged. The city's own notice still carries the ballot wording, which still opens by telling the voter the result is a nonbinding statement of preference. The election is still set for November 3rd. - 2026-08-29 · The August 25th meeting has been held and the city's record of it now reads as minutes rather than as a notice. No item on it names an automated license plate reader. The special election is still set for November 3rd and the published wording still tells the voter the result does not bind the council. - 2026-09-02 · The ordinance stands and the special election it ordered is still set. - 2026-09-05 · The League City election on whether police may keep plate reader data is still ordered for November and the ordering is unchanged. - 2026-09-08 · League City's special election on whether police may keep using automated plate reader cameras is still ordered and still on the calendar the council set. Nothing has been filed to withdraw it. - 2026-09-09 · League City's special election on the police plate reader cameras is still ordered for November 3rd, and the ordinance ordering it is unchanged. - 2026-09-12 · League City's election on whether the police may keep the plate reader cameras is still ordered for November 3rd, and the ordinance ordering it reads as it did. - 2026-09-13 · The special election on the police plate reader cameras is still ordered, and the ordinance that put the proposition on the ballot is unchanged. - 2026-09-16 · The special election on whether police may keep plate reader cameras is still ordered for November, and the ordinance calling it still reads as adopted. The ballot proposition has not been altered. - 2026-09-19 · The special election is still called for November 3rd and the order calling it is unchanged. - 2026-09-23 · The November 3rd special election is still called, and the question on the ballot is still whether the police may keep using the cameras. - 2026-09-26 · The November 3rd special election is still ordered, and the ballot still asks whether police may keep the fixed plate reader cameras. - 2026-09-29 · League City's plate reader proposition is still set for the November ballot under the ordinance the council passed. - 2026-10-02 · League City's council order putting the plate reader cameras to a November 3rd vote still reads as passed in the city's own legislative record. - 2026-10-05 · League City's November 3rd ballot still carries the proposition on whether police keep the fixed plate reader cameras, as the council's own record orders it. - 2026-10-08 · League City's record still shows the ordinance passing on August 11th and the ballot wording voters will see on November 3rd. - 2026-10-11 · League City's record still carries the election ordinance and the plate reader proposition. Voters decide it on November 3rd. - 2026-10-15 · League City's legislative record still carries the election ordinance on plate reader cameras. Voters decide it in November. - 2026-10-18 · League City's news post and meeting record still carry the November election on plate reader cameras. The ordinance's own file is unconfirmed. - 2026-10-21 · The comment window is still open, closing November 3rd. - 2026-10-24 · League City's plate reader proposition is still set for the special election on November 3rd. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### League City ordered a special election for November 3, 2026 on a proposition about police use of fixed automated license plate reader cameras. > Consider and take action on an ordinance ordering a Special Election for the City of League City, Texas, on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, to submit a proposition regarding the League City Police Department's continued use of automated license plate reader cameras at fixed locations on public roadways for law enforcement purposes (Mayor Long) Sponsor requests approval on first and final reading. Source (primary_official): https://webapi.legistar.com/v1/leaguecity/matters/13827 ### The council approved the ordinance on first and final reading at its August 11, 2026 meeting. > A motion was made by Mr. Chadwell, seconded by Mr. Cones, to approve Ordinance No. 2026-27 on First and Final Reading Source (primary_official): https://webapi.legistar.com/v1/leaguecity/matters/13827/histories ### The city published the exact wording voters will be asked, and it opens by telling them the result does not bind the council. > As a nonbinding statement of voter preference, should the League City Police Department continue using automated license plate reader cameras at fixed locations on public roadways for law enforcement purposes? Source (primary_official): https://www.leaguecitytx.gov/m/newsflash/Home/Detail/6318 ### The August 25th meeting was held, its record names no automated license plate reader item, and the city's calendar carries no council meeting after it. > The City Council of the City of League City, Texas, met in a regular meeting in the Council Chambers at 200 West Walker Street on the above date at 6:00 p.m. Source (primary_official): https://webapi.legistar.com/v1/leaguecity/events/2222/eventitems --- # Harris County Commissioners Court renewed its Flock Group license plate reader and sound detection contract, then amended it to run county-wide Harris County Commissioners Court approved a renewal option with Flock Group, Inc. for a license plate reader and sound detection system on May 28th, 2026 as agenda item 86. The renewal covers a period running from June 6th, 2026 to June 5th, 2027 at a cost of $868,975. Commissioner Ellis moved approval and Commissioner Garcia seconded. On July 9th, 2026 the court approved a follow up amendment that supplements certain terms and clarifies that the agreement is available for use County-wide at no additional cost. Local reporting on the May vote says the item passed with four votes and that County Judge Lina Hidalgo abstained after residents spoke against it. - Topic: surveillance-and-policing - Decided by: Harris County Commissioners Court (county) - Where: Harris - Statistical areas: - Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://agenda.harriscountytx.gov/ - Last checked: 2026-10-22 ## Dates - 2026-05-18 · filed: Renewal item introduced as the renewal file - 2026-05-28 · ordered: Commissioners Court approved the renewal as agenda item 86 - 2026-06-06 · effective: Start of the contract period stated in the approved item - 2026-07-09 · ordered: Court approved the amendment making the agreement available county-wide at no additional cost ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-19 · Whether the license has been revisited is unconfirmed. The court has met on August 17th and has meetings set for August 20th and August 25th. The item texts for those meetings are not published on the court's own calendar. - 2026-08-22 · Checked and unchanged. The county's own record still marks the Flock Group renewal passed on May 28th, for the period June 6th, 2026 to June 5th, 2027, at a cost of 868,975 dollars. - 2026-08-25 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-08-28 · Checked and unchanged. The Flock renewal still runs on its stated term and the county-wide amendment still stands. Nothing has been posted narrowing where the cameras and sound detection may operate. - 2026-09-01 · Harris County's amended countywide Flock contract remains approved. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-05 · Harris County's plate reader and sound detection contract still runs county-wide as amended. The renewal is unchanged. - 2026-09-08 · Harris County's plate reader and sound detection contract with Flock still runs county-wide under the amendment. The Governor's funding pause reaches state agencies rather than this county contract. - 2026-09-09 · Harris County's renewal of the Flock plate reader and sound detection contracts is still in force, and the county has posted no change to either. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-16 · The Harris County plate reader and sound detection contract is still running county-wide under the amendment the court adopted. Nothing has been filed to narrow it back. - 2026-09-19 · The license plate reader and sound detection contract is still running county-wide on the amended terms. - 2026-09-23 · Harris County's camera contract still runs countywide on the amended terms. - 2026-09-26 · Harris County's Flock contract still runs countywide on the amended terms. - 2026-09-29 · Harris County's amended Flock contract still covers plate readers and sound detection across the whole county. - 2026-10-02 · Harris County's renewal of its Flock plate reader license stands in the county's own record. The one news account cited beside it bars automated readers. - 2026-10-05 · Harris County's own record still carries the renewal of the Flock plate reader and sound detection license. - 2026-10-08 · Harris County's own record still carries the Flock renewal and the later amendment opening it to the whole county. The fourth source is unconfirmed, because its site bars automated readers. - 2026-10-11 · Harris County's agenda records still carry the Flock renewal and the amendment extending it countywide. The station's report stays out of reach. - 2026-10-15 · Harris County's agenda records still carry the Flock renewal and its countywide extension. The station's report is unconfirmed. - 2026-10-18 · Harris County's legislative record still carries the Flock renewal and its history. The station's report is unconfirmed, since its site bars automated readers. - 2026-10-22 · Harris County's legislative record still carries the Flock renewal and the amendment that followed it. The station's report stays unconfirmed, since its site bars automated readers. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### Harris County approved a one year renewal with Flock Group, Inc. for license plate reader and sound detection at a stated cost of $868,975. > Request for approval of a renewal option with Flock Group, Inc. for license plate reader and sound detection system for Harris County for the period of June 6, 2026 - June 5, 2027, at a cost of $868,975 (220336), Justification for 0% MWBE Participation Goal: 0% - Non-Divisible. Source (primary_official): https://webapi.legistar.com/v1/harriscountytx/matters/45396 ### The renewal was moved by Commissioner Ellis and seconded by Commissioner Garcia on May 28, 2026. > A motion was made by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Garcia, that this item be approved. The motion carried by the following vote: Source (primary_official): https://webapi.legistar.com/v1/harriscountytx/matters/45396/histories ### On July 9, 2026 the court amended the same agreement to clarify it is available county-wide at no additional cost. > Request that the County Judge execute an amendment to an agreement with Flock Group, Inc. to supplement certain terms and clarify that the agreement is available for use County-wide for license plate reader and sound detection system for Harris County for the period of June 6, 2026 - June 5, 2027, at no additional cost (220336), Justification for 0% MWBE Participation Goal: 0% - Non-Divisible. Source (primary_official): https://webapi.legistar.com/v1/harriscountytx/matters/46234 ### The county judge abstained and the renewal carried with four votes. > The contract ultimately passed with four votes. Hidalgo abstained. Source (journalism): https://www.click2houston.com/news/local/2026/05/29/'y'all-are-playing-games':-discussion-over-harris-county's-flock-camera-contract-renewal-turns-tense/ --- # Corpus Christi City Council directed staff to write a zoning amendment prohibiting data centers in every zoning district and to prepare a moratorium process The Corpus Christi City Council passed a motion on July 21st, 2026 as agenda item 18, moved by Council Member Gilbert Hernandez and seconded by Council Member Carolyn Vaughn. The motion tells staff to initiate a Unified Development Code amendment defining data centers as a distinct principal land use. Staff are also to amend the zoning and permitted use tables to prohibit them in all districts. It also directs an extraterritorial jurisdiction and infrastructure protection policy. Under it a data center would fully fund its own infrastructure, provide verified water and wastewater planning and address electric and backup power impacts. It would need separate City Council approval before receiving city utility service or economic development incentives. A third part directs the statutory notice, hearing and findings work needed before the council could consider a temporary development moratorium. Nothing is prohibited yet because the motion only starts that process. The same meeting carried a staff briefing on data centers that included an overview of Governor Abbott's recent guidelines. - Topic: data-centers - Decided by: Corpus Christi City Council (city) - Where: Nueces - Statistical areas: - Corpus Christi, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://www.corpuschristitx.gov/our-government/agendas-and-minutes/ - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-07-15 · filed: Motion introduced as the motion file - 2026-07-21 · ordered: Council passed the motion as agenda item 18 ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-19 · Whether staff has returned with the zoning ordinance is unconfirmed. The city's agendas page publishes no item text and carries nothing dated August. - 2026-08-22 · Checked and unchanged. The city's own record still marks the motion passed on July 21st as M2026-070. It still directs staff to initiate a code amendment defining data centers as a distinct principal land use. It also still directs staff to prepare the statutory process for a temporary development moratorium. - 2026-08-26 · Checked and unchanged. The direction to staff to write a zoning amendment still stands and no draft has been posted. - 2026-08-29 · Checked and unchanged. The council's direction to staff still stands and the code amendment it asked for is still being written rather than adopted. Data centers are still not a distinct land use in the city's code. - 2026-09-02 · The motion stands as passed. The zoning amendment it directed staff to write has not come back to the council. - 2026-09-05 · Corpus Christi's direction to write the zoning prohibition still stands and no amendment has come back to the council. - 2026-09-08 · Corpus Christi's instruction to staff still stands. The zoning amendment prohibiting data centers in every district has not come back to the council, and neither has the moratorium process. - 2026-09-09 · Corpus Christi's direction to write a data center zoning amendment is still with staff and nothing has come back to the council. - 2026-09-12 · Corpus Christi's direction to write a data center zoning amendment is still with staff. Nothing has come back to the council and no moratorium process has been noticed. - 2026-09-13 · The direction to write a data center zoning amendment is still with staff, and nothing has come back to the council. - 2026-09-16 · Corpus Christi's direction to write a prohibition into its zoning is still direction rather than an ordinance. Staff has brought nothing back. - 2026-09-19 · The direction to staff stands. The zoning amendment it asked for has not yet come back to the council for a vote. - 2026-09-23 · The direction to staff still stands, and the zoning amendment it asked for still has not come back to the council. - 2026-09-26 · The council's direction to staff still stands. The zoning amendment and the moratorium proposal it asked for have not come back to the council. - 2026-09-29 · Corpus Christi staff still holds the council's direction to draft the zoning ban and the moratorium proposal, and neither has come back to the council. - 2026-10-02 · Corpus Christi's direction to staff to write data center zoning and a moratorium process still reads as the council's motion put it. - 2026-10-05 · Corpus Christi's legislative record still carries the council's direction to write a zoning amendment that keeps data centers out of every district. - 2026-10-08 · Corpus Christi's record of the July 21st meeting still carries the data center briefing, and the council's direction on zoning stands. - 2026-10-11 · Corpus Christi's record still shows the council directing staff to bar data centers in every zoning district. - 2026-10-15 · Corpus Christi's legislative record still shows the council directing staff to bar data centers in every zoning district. - 2026-10-18 · Corpus Christi's legislative record still shows staff directed to write the zoning ban on data centers. One related file is unconfirmed. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · Corpus Christi's direction to staff on a zoning amendment barring data centers still stands on the council's legislative record. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The council directed staff to define data centers as a distinct land use and prohibit them in all zoning districts, to build an infrastructure protection policy, and to prepare the process for a temporary moratorium. > Motion to direct staff regarding data center classification and parameters, as requested by Council Members Kaylynn Paxson, Gil Hernandez, and Carolyn Vaughn: 1. Initiate a Unified Development Code amendment to define data centers as a distinct principal land use and amend the City's zoning and permitted-use tables to prohibit data centers in all zoning districts, rather than allowing them to be approved by default under existing office, data processing, utility, warehouse, industrial, or similar land-use categories. 2. An ETJ, utility, infrastructure, and public facilities protection policy requiring data centers and similar high-intensity digital infrastructure projects to enter into an IDA and to fully fund their own infrastructure needs, prevent cost-shifting to residents and ratepayers, provide verified water and wastewater planning, address electric and backup power impacts, mitigate community impacts, and receive separate City Council approval before receiving City utility service, infrastructure participation, development agreement approval, or economic development incentives. 3. The statutory notice, hearing, findings, and ordinance preparation process necessary for City Council consideration of a temporary development moratorium related to data centers and similar high-intensity digital infrastructure use. Source (primary_official): https://webapi.legistar.com/v1/corpuschristi/matters/26218 ### The same July 21, 2026 council meeting included a data center briefing covering the Governor's recent guidelines. > Briefing on Data Centers, including overview of Governor Abbott's recent guidelines. Source (primary_official): https://webapi.legistar.com/v1/corpuschristi/matters?$filter=substringof(%27Data%20Center%27,MatterTitle)&$orderby=MatterIntroDate%20desc&$top=20 ### The motion does not itself ban data centers in the city. > The motion does not ban data centers in Corpus Christi. It directs staff to develop possible policy options and bring those recommendations back to city council. Source (journalism): https://www.kristv.com/news/local-news/in-your-neighborhood/corpus-christi/corpus-christi-city-council-moves-to-develop-data-center-regulations-for-the-city --- # Brazoria County Commissioners Court voted 5 to 0 to deny the reinvestment zone that four data center and power plant abatement applications depended on Brazoria County Commissioners Court opened and closed a public hearing on the creation of Brazoria County Reinvestment Zone No. 26-01 on March 10th, 2026. The court then refused to create the zone. Commissioner David R. Linder moved to deny the order and Commissioner Stacy L. Adams seconded. The county's own minute note records that the motion to deny passed 5 to 0. Later items on the same agenda were four tax abatement applications, two from Bulldog Power and two from Old Ocean Datacenter. Each of those items carries the same note in the record. No action was taken because the reinvestment zone item had failed. Killing the zone killed the abatements without a separate vote on any one of them. - Topic: data-centers - Decided by: Brazoria County Commissioners Court (county) - Where: Brazoria - Statistical areas: - Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://brazoriacountytx.legistar.com/MainBody.aspx - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-02-10 · filed: Orders setting hearing dates on the four abatement applications introduced - 2026-03-10 · hearing: Public hearing on creation of Brazoria County Reinvestment Zone No. 26-01 opened and closed - 2026-03-10 · ordered: Court denied creation of the reinvestment zone, and the four abatement items were left with no action ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-19 · Checked and unchanged. Nothing about data centers, abatements or reinvestment zones has come before the court since July 15th, so the denial stands. - 2026-08-22 · Checked and unchanged. The court's 5 to 0 denial of the reinvestment zone still stands and nothing about data centers, abatements or reinvestment zones has come before the court since. - 2026-08-25 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-08-28 · Checked and unchanged. The reinvestment zone is still denied, and because the four abatement applications rested on it none of them has been revived. Brazoria County has posted no new zone request in its place. - 2026-09-01 · Brazoria County's denial of the reinvestment zone still blocks the linked abatement applications. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-05 · Brazoria County's denial of the reinvestment zone still stands and the four abatement applications that depended on it are still without a zone. - 2026-09-08 · Brazoria County's refusal of the reinvestment zone still stands, and the four abatement applications that depended on it have not been revived. - 2026-09-09 · The reinvestment zone the four data center parcels needed is still denied. Brazoria County has not been asked to reconsider it. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-16 · The Brazoria County denial of the reinvestment zone still stands, and the four abatement applications that depended on it are still without the zone they needed. No replacement zone has been proposed. - 2026-09-19 · The reinvestment zone is still denied, and the four applications that depended on it have not been revived. - 2026-09-23 · Brazoria County's denial of the reinvestment zone still leaves the four applications with nothing to attach to. - 2026-09-26 · Brazoria County's denial of the reinvestment zone still stands, so the four abatement applications still have no zone to attach to. - 2026-09-29 · With the reinvestment zone denied, the four data center and power plant abatement requests in Brazoria County still have nothing to attach to. - 2026-10-02 · Brazoria County's denial of the reinvestment zone stands, so the four abatement requests still have no zone to sit in. - 2026-10-05 · Brazoria County's unanimous denial of the reinvestment zone still stands. - 2026-10-08 · Brazoria County's denial of the reinvestment zone has not been revisited. - 2026-10-11 · Brazoria County has not revisited its unanimous denial of the reinvestment zone. - 2026-10-15 · Brazoria County's unanimous denial of the reinvestment zone has not been revisited. - 2026-10-18 · Brazoria County's unanimous vote against the reinvestment zone still stands on the court's record. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · Brazoria County's denial of the reinvestment zone still stands, so the four abatement applications that depended on it remain stalled. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The court denied the order creating Brazoria County Reinvestment Zone No. 26-01 on a unanimous motion to deny. > Commissioner Linder made a motion to deny order 1.3, Commissioner Adams seconded. Motion to deny passed 5-0. Source (primary_official): https://webapi.legistar.com/v1/brazoriacountytx/events/6219/eventitems?AgendaNote=1&MinutesNote=1&Attachments=0 ### The abatement items that followed received no action because the zone item failed. > No action taken due to I.3 failed Source (primary_official): https://webapi.legistar.com/v1/brazoriacountytx/events/6219/eventitems?AgendaNote=1&MinutesNote=1&Attachments=0 ### The affected applicants included two entities named as data center companies and two named as power companies. > Granting Tax Abatement of Old Ocean Datacenter LLC Source (primary_official): https://webapi.legistar.com/v1/brazoriacountytx/matters?$filter=substringof(%27Data%20Center%27,MatterTitle)%20or%20substringof(%27Abatement%27,MatterTitle)&$orderby=MatterIntroDate%20desc&$top=40 --- # Brazoria County Commissioners Court adopted a resolution stating conditions it wants on data center development On June 9th, 2026 Brazoria County Commissioners Court adopted a measure on data center development. Its own agenda system records it as a resolution about data centers and related facilities in Texas. The item was introduced on May 29th, 2026, reached the court and was approved. Reporting on the resolution says the court supports responsible economic development, including appropriately designed and sited data centers. It also says no future data center should proceed without an independent impact assessment. A county resolution is not an ordinance and Texas counties have no zoning power outside city limits, so this sets a stated position rather than a rule. It came from the same court that had already refused the reinvestment zone behind the Old Ocean Datacenter and Bulldog Power abatement applications. - Topic: data-centers - Decided by: Brazoria County Commissioners Court (county) - Where: Brazoria - Statistical areas: - Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://brazoriacountytx.legistar.com/MainBody.aspx - Last checked: 2026-10-22 ## Dates - 2026-05-29 · filed: Resolution introduced as file 18483 - 2026-06-09 · ordered: Court approved the resolution as the first agenda item ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-19 · Checked and unchanged. Nothing about data centers, abatements or reinvestment zones has come before the court since July 15th, so the resolution stands. The court did adopt two separate license plate reader agreements on July 31st, with the Department of Public Safety and with the Houston High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area. - 2026-08-22 · Checked and unchanged. The county's own record still marks the resolution on data center development adopted on June 9th by the Commissioners Court. - 2026-08-26 · Checked and unchanged. The county's resolution still stands and its own text still supports appropriately designed and sited data centers rather than opposing them outright. - 2026-08-29 · Checked and unchanged. The resolution still states the conditions the court expects of a data center and it still binds nobody. The court still says it supports appropriately sited development while opposing development without safeguards. - 2026-09-02 · The resolution stands as adopted and the county has recorded no amendment. - 2026-09-05 · Brazoria County's statement of the conditions it wants on data centers still stands as adopted. - 2026-09-08 · Brazoria County's resolution setting out the conditions it wants on data center development is still in force as adopted. It is still a statement of conditions rather than an ordinance. - 2026-09-09 · Brazoria County's statement of the conditions it would want on a data center is still the county's published position. - 2026-09-12 · Brazoria County's statement of the conditions it would want on a data center is still the county's published position and still binds nobody. - 2026-09-13 · Brazoria County's statement of the conditions it wants on a data center is still adopted and still the county's published position. - 2026-09-16 · Brazoria County's resolution still states the conditions it wants on a data center, and it still binds nobody. Nothing has converted it into a rule. - 2026-09-19 · The conditions the court named are unchanged, and they are still a resolution rather than anything a developer has to meet. - 2026-09-24 · Brazoria County's conditions remain a resolution rather than a requirement any developer has to meet. - 2026-09-27 · Brazoria County's resolution still reads as the court adopted it. Its conditions remain a stated position rather than a rule a developer must meet. - 2026-09-30 · The county's legislative record still shows the resolution adopted with the conditions it states. - 2026-10-03 · Brazoria County's legislative record still shows the resolution adopted, with the conditions it sets on data center development. - 2026-10-06 · Brazoria County's legislative record still shows the data center resolution adopted with its conditions intact. - 2026-10-09 · Brazoria County's record still shows the data center resolution adopted with its conditions. - 2026-10-12 · Brazoria County's resolution setting the conditions it wants on data centers stands as adopted. - 2026-10-15 · Brazoria County's resolution setting conditions on data centers stands as adopted. The station's report is unconfirmed. - 2026-10-18 · Brazoria County's legislative record still carries the resolution on data center conditions as adopted. The station's report is unconfirmed. - 2026-10-22 · Brazoria County's legislative record still carries the resolution setting out the conditions it wants on data centers. The station's report stays unconfirmed. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### Brazoria County Commissioners Court adopted a resolution on data center development on June 9, 2026. > Resolution Regarding the Development of Data Centers and Related Facilities in the State of Texas Source (primary_official): https://webapi.legistar.com/v1/brazoriacountytx/matters/4786 ### The court's record shows the resolution approved and passing at the June 9, 2026 meeting. > APPROVED Source (primary_official): https://webapi.legistar.com/v1/brazoriacountytx/matters/4786/histories ### Reporting describes the resolution as supporting appropriately designed and sited data centers while asking for an independent impact assessment before any future project proceeds. > The Brazoria County Commissioners Court supports responsible economic development, including appropriately designed and sited data centers and related facilities. Source (journalism): https://www.click2houston.com/news/local/2026/06/08/is-brazoria-county-anti-data-center-new-resolution-seeks-tougher-rules-on-future-projects/ --- # Houston ISD carried an artificial intelligence board policy to a second reading Houston Independent School District has a proposed local board policy numbered CQD(LOCAL) covering technology resources and artificial intelligence. The item was introduced on March 20th, 2026. Its first reading sat on the June 11th, 2026 board agenda as item 42. Its second reading sat on the August 13th, 2026 agenda as item 24, in the consent section. The district's agenda system records no action, mover or vote for either reading. The August 13th minutes are still marked draft, so the record does not yet show whether the board adopted it. This is a state-appointed Board of Managers rather than an elected board, and the policy would apply to the largest school district in Texas. - Topic: health-and-education - Decided by: Houston Independent School District Board of Managers (school-district) - Where: Harris - Statistical areas: - Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX - Status: pending - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://houstonisd.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?LEGID=1304&GID=889&G=AEA739C4-F651-4FB7-B1D8-F4D303D5084D - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-03-20 · filed: Item introduced as the policy file - 2026-06-11 · hearing: First reading placed on the board agenda as item 42 - 2026-08-13 · hearing: Second reading placed on the board agenda as item 24, in the consent section ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-18 · Checked and unchanged. Policy CQD(LOCAL) sits on the August 13th agenda with no recorded action and no passed flag. - 2026-08-21 · Checked and unchanged. Policy CQD(LOCAL) sits on the August 13th agenda in the consent section with no recorded action, no passed date and an empty action history. - 2026-08-25 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-08-28 · Checked and unchanged. The district's agenda system still records no action on CQD(LOCAL) at its second reading. Houston ISD still has no adopted board policy on artificial intelligence while its schools keep running. - 2026-09-01 · Houston ISD's artificial-intelligence board policy remains between readings, with no final adoption in the record. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-05 · The Houston district's AI policy is still between readings. It has not returned to the board for the second one. - 2026-09-08 · Houston ISD's artificial intelligence policy is still between readings. The board has published no adoption of it. - 2026-09-09 · Houston ISD's artificial intelligence board policy is still stopped after its second reading, with no third reading called. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-16 · The Houston ISD artificial intelligence policy is still between readings. A second reading was taken and the board has not yet adopted it. - 2026-09-19 · The artificial intelligence policy is still between readings, so the district has adopted nothing yet. - 2026-09-23 · The Houston board policy is still between its two readings. - 2026-09-26 · Houston ISD's policy on artificial intelligence is still between its readings, with no final adoption posted. - 2026-09-29 · Houston ISD has not posted a final vote on its board policy on artificial intelligence after the second reading. - 2026-10-02 · Houston ISD's board policy on artificial intelligence still shows no final vote after its second reading. - 2026-10-05 · Houston ISD's AI board policy still waits on the vote that follows its second reading. - 2026-10-08 · Houston ISD's AI policy still waits on the board vote after its second reading. - 2026-10-11 · Houston ISD's AI board policy still awaits a final vote after its second reading. - 2026-10-15 · Houston ISD's AI board policy still waits on a final vote after its second reading. - 2026-10-18 · Houston ISD's AI policy still reads as carried to a second reading, with no adoption on its page. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-10-24 · Houston ISD's AI board policy still stands at the second reading the board carried it to. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The second reading of a proposed local board policy on artificial intelligence was scheduled for the August 13, 2026 board agenda. > Approval To Establish Board Policy CQD(LOCAL), Technology Resources: Artificial Intelligence-Second Reading Source (primary_official): https://webapi.legistar.com/v1/houstonisd/matters?$filter=substringof(%27Future%202%27,MatterTitle)%20or%20substringof(%27Artificial%20Intelligence%27,MatterTitle)&$orderby=MatterIntroDate%20desc&$top=25 ### The item appeared as agenda item 24 at the August 13, 2026 School Board meeting. > 24. Source (primary_official): https://webapi.legistar.com/v1/houstonisd/events/1304/eventitems?AgendaNote=1&MinutesNote=1&Attachments=0 ### The first reading of the same policy appeared as agenda item 42 at the June 11, 2026 board meeting. > Approval To Establish Board Policy CQD(LOCAL), Technology Resources: Artificial Intelligence-First Reading Source (primary_official): https://webapi.legistar.com/v1/houstonisd/events/1303/eventitems?AgendaNote=1&MinutesNote=1&Attachments=0 --- # Houston-Galveston Area Council put AI consulting services on its HGACBuy purchasing catalog under contract AI05-26 HGACBuy is the cooperative purchasing program run by the Houston-Galveston Area Council. It publishes an active contract numbered AI05-26 titled AI Consulting Services. The term runs from May 1st, 2026 through April 30th, 2030. The catalog describes the work as comprehensive guidance through the array of possible solutions where artificial intelligence can be integrated. Five vendors are listed as awarded on the contract page. This is the procurement plumbing behind a lot of Texas government AI work. A contract vehicle is how a small city or district buys a service without running its own solicitation. - Topic: state-policy - Decided by: Houston-Galveston Area Council (HGACBuy) (special-district) - Where: Harris - Statistical areas: - Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://www.hgacbuy.org/products-and-services/view-contract?contractid=3147 - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-05-01 · effective: Start of the contract term shown on the HGACBuy contract page ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-19 · Checked and unchanged. The cooperative contract for artificial intelligence consulting runs from May 1st, 2026 to April 30th, 2030 and remains active, with 27 qualified contractors listed against it. - 2026-08-22 · Checked and unchanged. The cooperative contract for artificial intelligence consulting services still runs from May 1st, 2026 to April 30th, 2030 and is still listed as active on the purchasing catalog. - 2026-08-26 · Checked and unchanged. Contract AI05-26 for AI consulting services still runs from May 1st, 2026 to April 30th, 2030 and the product listing still carries the same service description. The cooperative has changed how it prints the contract term and the quote is corrected to the form the page shows now. - 2026-08-29 · Checked and unchanged. The contract is still live on the cooperative purchasing site and artificial intelligence consulting is still listed among the services a member government may buy through it. The suppliers offering it are unchanged. - 2026-09-02 · The purchasing contract is still listed as active and its category is unchanged. - 2026-09-05 · AI consulting services are still on the regional council's purchasing catalog and the contract behind them is unchanged. - 2026-09-08 · AI consulting services are still listed on the regional council's purchasing catalog under the same contract, so any member government can still buy them without running its own procurement. - 2026-09-09 · Artificial intelligence consulting is still on the regional council's purchasing schedule, so any member government can still buy it without running its own procurement. - 2026-09-12 · Artificial intelligence consulting is still on the regional council's purchasing schedule, so a member government can still buy it without running its own procurement. - 2026-09-13 · Artificial intelligence consulting is still on the regional council's purchasing schedule, so a member government can still buy it without running a procurement of its own. - 2026-09-16 · The purchasing catalog still carries artificial intelligence consulting, so any member government can still buy it without running its own procurement. The listing is unchanged. - 2026-09-19 · The consulting services are still on the purchasing catalog under the same contract, so any member government can still buy from it without running its own procurement. - 2026-09-24 · The consulting services are still on the purchasing catalog under the same contract, open to any member government. - 2026-09-27 · The consulting services are still listed on the purchasing catalog under the same contract, open to member governments. - 2026-09-30 · The purchasing cooperative still lists artificial intelligence consulting on its contract, under the same supplier. - 2026-10-03 · The purchasing cooperative still lists AI consulting under the same contract and the same supplier. - 2026-10-06 · HGACBuy still lists AI consulting services on the same contract with the same supplier. - 2026-10-09 · HGACBuy still lists AI consulting services under the same contract. - 2026-10-12 · AI consulting is still on the HGACBuy catalog under the same contract, open to any member government that buys through it. - 2026-10-15 · AI consulting is still on the HGACBuy catalog under the same contract. - 2026-10-18 · The HGACBuy contract page still lists AI consulting services under the same contract. The catalog's category page is unconfirmed. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · The AI consulting services contract still sits on the HGACBuy purchasing catalog, open to member governments. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### HGACBuy contract AI05-26, AI Consulting Services, runs from May 1, 2026 through April 30, 2030. > Effective Dates 05/01/2026 - 04/30/2030 Source (primary_official): https://www.hgacbuy.org/products-and-services/view-contract?contractid=3147 ### The contract's scope is described as guidance on integrating artificial intelligence into an organization's processes. > comprehensive guidance through the array of possible solutions where Artificial Intelligence (AI) can be integrated Source (primary_official): https://www.hgacbuy.org/products-and-services/view-contract?contractid=3147 ### The catalog lists artificial intelligence consulting and related services as a purchasable product under the contract. > AI consulting; IT consulting; artificial intelligence; system design; data modeling; semantic layer design; dashboard development; platform administration; AI and BI enhancement. Source (primary_official): https://www.hgacbuy.org/products-and-services/view-product?productid=44520 --- # Conroe City Council fell short of the votes needed to put its Flock camera contract on the November ballot Conroe City Council voted late on August 13th, 2026 on whether to place a binding proposition about the city's Flock Safety license plate reader cameras before voters in November. Reporting says the motion did not get the three yes votes it needed. Council Member David Hairel and Council Member Shana Arthur were the only members who supported it. The city faced an August 17th deadline to place items on the November ballot, so the question will not reach Conroe voters this fall. The same council had already voted unanimously on July 23rd, 2026 to table two Flock related proposals indefinitely, a step that did not terminate or change the city's Flock agreement. The neighboring city of League City took the opposite path two days earlier and ordered the election. - Topic: surveillance-and-policing - Decided by: Conroe City Council (city) - Where: Montgomery - Statistical areas: - Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://www.cityofconroe.org/government/city_council/agendas_minutes/index.php - Last checked: 2026-09-29 ## Dates - 2026-07-23 · ordered: Council voted unanimously to table two Flock camera proposals indefinitely - 2026-08-13 · ordered: Motion to place a Flock proposition on the November ballot failed for lack of a third vote - 2026-08-17 · statutory deadline: Reported deadline to place items on the November ballot ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-19 · Whether the council has taken the question up again is unconfirmed. The city's agendas page publishes no meeting dates or item text for August. - 2026-08-22 · Whether the council has taken the question up again is still unconfirmed. The vote falling short of putting the Flock camera contract on the November ballot still stands and the city publishes no later item text. - 2026-08-25 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-08-28 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-01 · Conroe's effort to send the Flock contract to voters remains short of the required council support. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-05 · The Conroe camera contract is still off the November ballot for want of the votes. Nothing has been reconsidered. - 2026-09-08 · Conroe's Flock camera contract still stands without a public vote on it. The council never found the votes to put it on the ballot. - 2026-09-09 · The Conroe Flock camera question is still off the ballot, because the council never found the votes to put it on, and nothing has been refiled. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-16 · The Conroe camera contract is still not going to the voters. The motion to put it on the ballot fell short and no member has moved to revive it. - 2026-09-19 · The camera contract is still not on any ballot, so the question stays with the council rather than the voters. - 2026-09-23 · Conroe's camera contract is still not on a ballot, and the council has not revisited the vote. - 2026-09-26 · Conroe's Flock contract is still off the November ballot, and the council has not taken the question up again. - 2026-09-29 · Conroe's Flock contract stays off the November ballot. The council has not brought the question back. - 2026-10-02 · Conroe's failed vote to put the cameras on the ballot is unconfirmed this run. Both accounts of it sit on sites that bar automated readers. - 2026-10-03 · Conroe's failed vote to put the cameras on the ballot is still unconfirmed. Both accounts bar automated readers and the city's agenda site did not answer. - 2026-10-04 · Conroe's failed vote to put the cameras on the ballot is still unconfirmed. The city now lists minutes for its August 13th meeting, but the file sits on a host that bars automated readers, as do both published accounts. - 2026-10-05 · Conroe's failed vote to put the cameras on the ballot is still unconfirmed. Both published accounts bar automated readers, and the city's agenda page carries no copy of the vote. - 2026-10-06 · Conroe's failed vote to send its camera contract to the ballot is still unconfirmed. Both published accounts bar automated readers. - 2026-10-07 · Conroe's tabled plate camera question is still unconfirmed. The city's minutes and both published accounts bar automated readers. - 2026-10-08 · Conroe's tabled plate camera question remains unconfirmed. The city's minutes and both published accounts still bar automated readers. - 2026-10-09 · Conroe's plate camera ballot question remains unconfirmed. The city's minutes and both accounts still bar automated readers. - 2026-10-10 · Conroe's plate camera ballot question stays unconfirmed. The city's minutes and both accounts bar automated readers. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The motion to send the Flock camera question to voters failed for want of a third vote. > the motion did not get the three "yes" votes needed to advance Source (journalism): https://www.click2houston.com/news/local/2026/08/14/conroe-city-council-vote-falls-short-of-putting-flock-camera-question-on-november-ballot/ ### Only two council members supported placing the question on the ballot. > Hairel and Council Member Shana Arthur were the only members who supported placing it on the ballot. Source (journalism): https://www.click2houston.com/news/local/2026/08/14/conroe-city-council-vote-falls-short-of-putting-flock-camera-question-on-november-ballot/ ### The council had earlier tabled two Flock camera proposals indefinitely without changing the city's contract. > Two proposals tied to Conroe's use of Flock Safety cameras were tabled indefinitely after City Council members voted unanimously to set both items aside. Source (journalism): https://abc13.com/story/conroe-city-council-indefinitely-tables-2-flock-camera-proposals/19575313/ ### The tabling did not end or alter the city's Flock agreement. > The votes do not terminate, suspend or change the city's Flock agreement. Source (journalism): https://abc13.com/story/conroe-city-council-indefinitely-tables-2-flock-camera-proposals/19575313/ --- # Texas Water Development Board denied a petition to give data centers their own water demand category and adopted the 2027 State Water Plan the same day The Texas Water Development Board took up a petition for rulemaking on July 23rd, 2026. It asked the agency to project water demand for data centers and crypto mining as a standalone industrial category. The petition was filed by Margaret Hill and co petitioners, and the board denied it. At the same meeting the board considered adoption of the 2027 State Water Plan (Phase I), which contains no separate demand line for high density computing load. Board members noted that regional water plans feed the state plan and can be amended as better data arrives. The decision means the state's central water planning document carries data center demand folded inside broader categories rather than on its own. - Topic: land-water-and-permitting - Decided by: Texas Water Development Board (state-agency) - Where: Statewide - Status: decided - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://www.twdb.texas.gov/board/2026/07/board/index.asp - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-07-22 · statutory deadline: deadline for remote speakers to submit the visitor registration form for that meeting - 2026-07-23 · ordered: TWDB board meeting at which the petition for rulemaking was considered and the 2027 State Water Plan (Phase I) was taken up for adoption ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-19 · The petition is confirmed to have reached the board. The July 23rd agenda carries an item to consider acting on a petition for rulemaking on a dedicated industrial water use category for data centers and crypto mining operations. That agenda does not record how the board voted. - 2026-08-22 · Checked and unchanged. The July 23rd board agenda still carries the item to consider acting on a petition for rulemaking. The petition asks for a dedicated water use category for data centers, and no later board action on it appears. - 2026-08-25 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-08-26 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-08-26 · Quote repaired. The stored verbatim was missing the word "also", which is why a re-check could not find it on the page and reported it unreadable. Re-fetched at the source and the sentence reads "the three-member board also denied a petition by Wimberley resident Margaret Elizabeth Hill". Nothing else about the item changed. - 2026-08-29 · Checked and unchanged. The board's denial still stands and the state water plan still carries no standalone water demand projection for data centers. The petition asking for one is still refused. - 2026-09-02 · The petition for a separate water demand category for data centers is still the item on the board's own agenda and the board has published no reversal. - 2026-09-05 · The water board's refusal to give data centers their own demand category still stands and the state water plan carries what it carried. - 2026-09-08 · The water board's denial of the data center water demand petition still stands, and the state water plan adopted the same day is unchanged. One quote the record carried was short of the source by a word, and it now reads as the article actually wrote it. - 2026-09-09 · The water board's denial of the petition to give data centers their own demand projections still stands, and the state water plan still carries no separate figure for them. - 2026-09-12 · The water board's denial of the petition to give data centers their own demand projections still stands. The state water plan adopted the same day still carries no separate category for them. - 2026-09-13 · The board's denial of the petition for a separate data center water category still stands, and the state water plan still carries no separate figure for them. - 2026-09-16 · The water board's refusal to give data centers their own demand category still stands, so they are still counted inside the categories that existed before. Nothing has been refiled. - 2026-09-19 · The denial stands. The state water plan still carries no separate demand category for data centers. - 2026-09-24 · The board's denial stands. The state water plan still has no demand category of its own for data centers. - 2026-09-27 · The board's denial still stands. The state water plan still carries no demand category of its own for data centers. - 2026-09-30 · The water board's denial of the petition still stands as the board issued it. - 2026-10-03 · The water board's denial of the petition for a separate data center demand category still stands as issued. - 2026-10-06 · The water board's July meeting record still shows the petition for a data center demand category denied. - 2026-10-09 · The water board's meeting record still shows the data center demand category petition denied and the state water plan adopted. - 2026-10-12 · The water board's denial of a separate data center demand category stands, and so does the state water plan it adopted. - 2026-10-15 · The water board's refusal of a separate data center demand category stands in the published account. - 2026-10-18 · The water board's meeting agenda and the Community Impact account still record the petition denied. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · The water board's denial of a separate data center demand category still stands, and the state water plan was adopted as described. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The TWDB board agenda for July 23rd, 2026 carried an item to act on a rulemaking petition seeking a dedicated industrial water use category for data centers and crypto mining. > Consider acting on a petition for rulemaking filed by Margaret Hill and Co-Petitioners related to a dedicated industrial water-use category for Data Centers and Crypto-Mining Operations Source (primary_official): https://www.twdb.texas.gov/board/2026/07/board/index.asp ### The same agenda included adoption of the 2027 State Water Plan (Phase I). > Consider adoption of the 2027 State Water Plan (Phase I) Source (primary_official): https://www.twdb.texas.gov/board/2026/07/board/index.asp ### The board denied the petition, which had asked for mandatory standalone water demand projections for data centers and crypto mining. > the three-member board also denied a petition by Wimberley resident Margaret Elizabeth Hill Source (journalism): https://communityimpact.com/central-austin/texas-legislature/texas-includes-minimal-data-center-info-in-state-water-plan-citing-limited-data/ ### Board member Brady Franks said leaving the category out of the plan does not mean the agency is ignoring it. > I don't want folks to think that if it's not in the water plan, someone's not thinking about it or someone's not considering it. Source (journalism): https://communityimpact.com/central-austin/texas-legislature/texas-includes-minimal-data-center-info-in-state-water-plan-citing-limited-data/ --- # TCEQ canceled the Carson County public meeting on Fermi Equipment Holdco's new air permits and says it will be rescheduled The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality had scheduled a public meeting for August 24th, 2026 at the Panhandle High School Auditorium. It concerns proposed new air quality permits for Fermi Equipment Holdco, LLC. The agency posted a cancelation and stated the meeting will be rescheduled for a later date. The application covers a state new source review permit plus prevention of significant deterioration and greenhouse gas PSD permits. That is the permit family a large behind the meter generating plant needs. The site is in Carson County in the Texas Panhandle, which sits outside ERCOT. - Topic: land-water-and-permitting - Decided by: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Office of the Chief Clerk (state-agency) - Where: Carson - Statistical areas: - Amarillo, TX - Status: pending - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://www.tceq.texas.gov/agency/decisions/hearings/public-meeting-fermi-equipment-holdco-llc-183462-psdtx1704-and-ghgpsdtx271 - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-08-12 · filed: last modified date shown on the TCEQ cancelation page - 2026-08-24 · hearing: public meeting as originally scheduled, 7:00 PM Central, Panhandle High School Auditorium, since canceled ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-19 · Checked and unchanged. The Carson County meeting on the Fermi Equipment Holdco permits is still canceled and no new date is posted. - 2026-08-20 · Checked and unchanged. The cancelation notice for the Carson County meeting on the Fermi Equipment Holdco air permits still stands and still says the meeting will be rescheduled. No replacement date appears on it or on the agency's list of public meetings and hearings on permitting cases. The date a Texan in Panhandle could speak is still unset. - 2026-08-21 · Checked and unchanged. The cancelation notice for the Carson County meeting on the Fermi Equipment Holdco air permits still stands and still says the meeting will be rescheduled. No replacement date appears on it or on the agency's list of public meetings and hearings on permitting cases. The date a Texan in Panhandle could speak is still unset. - 2026-08-22 · Checked and unchanged. The cancelation notice still stands and still says the meeting will be rescheduled for a later date. No replacement date appears, so the date a Texan in Panhandle could speak is still unset, and the originally scheduled August 24th date is now two days away. - 2026-08-23 · Checked and unchanged. The cancelation notice for the Carson County meeting on Fermi Equipment Holdco's air permits still stands and still says the meeting will be rescheduled for a later date. No new date is posted, and the originally scheduled evening is tomorrow. - 2026-08-26 · Still canceled and still not rescheduled. The cancellation has come off the agency's calendar of upcoming meetings, which lists what is ahead rather than what was called off. The notice itself is still published on the case's own page. No replacement date is anywhere on the record. - 2026-08-29 · Checked and unchanged. The cancellation of the Carson County public meeting still stands on the agency's own page for the case. The permit application it was called for is still live, and no replacement meeting is set. - 2026-09-02 · The public meeting is still off the agency's calendar and no new date has been posted for it. - 2026-09-05 · The Carson County meeting on the Fermi air permits is still canceled and the agency's calendar of upcoming permitting meetings carries no replacement. The permit application is still live. - 2026-09-08 · The canceled Carson County meeting on the Fermi air permits has still not been rescheduled to a published date. The agency's calendar of permitting meetings no longer carries the cancelation entry at all. The record's own account of that notice is now the only dated statement of it a reader can check. - 2026-09-09 · The canceled Carson County public meeting has now dropped off the agency's list of scheduled hearings, which carries only what is still ahead. The cancelation notice itself is still posted on its own page and no replacement date has been set. - 2026-09-12 · The canceled Carson County public meeting is off the agency's list of scheduled hearings, which carries only what is still ahead. No rescheduled date has been posted, so there is no date to watch. - 2026-09-13 · The canceled Carson County meeting on the Fermi air permits still has no new date, and the agency's notice still says it will be rescheduled. - 2026-09-16 · The Carson County public meeting on the Fermi air permit is still canceled rather than reset, and the agency's hearings page carries no new date for it. The permit application is still pending. - 2026-09-19 · The canceled public meeting has not been rescheduled, and the agency still says it will be, so the date a resident would have to show up on is unconfirmed. - 2026-09-24 · The notice canceling the Carson County public meeting still reads as before. A new date has not been confirmed. - 2026-09-27 · The agency's hearings page still shows the Carson County meeting as canceled, and no new date has been posted. - 2026-09-30 · The agency's page still shows the Carson County public meeting as canceled, and no new date has been posted. - 2026-10-03 · The agency's page still shows the Carson County public meeting canceled. No new date has been posted. - 2026-10-06 · The agency still lists the Carson County public meeting on Fermi's air permits as canceled, with no new date set. - 2026-10-09 · The Carson County meeting on Fermi's air permits is no longer on the agency's hearings page. No new date appears in its place. - 2026-10-12 · The canceled Carson County meeting on Fermi's air permits has not been rescheduled. The agency's hearings page lists no new date. - 2026-10-15 · The agency's hearings page no longer lists the canceled Carson County meeting, and it lists no new date for one. - 2026-10-18 · The agency's cancellation notice for the Carson County meeting still reads as posted. Its hearings calendar is unconfirmed. - 2026-10-21 · The agency's cancellation notice for the Carson County meeting still reads as posted, and no new date has been published. Its hearings calendar no longer lists the canceled meeting. - 2026-10-24 · TCEQ's notice of the canceled Carson County meeting on Fermi's air permits has rolled off its calendar, and the permits still read as pending. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### TCEQ canceled the public meeting on Fermi Equipment Holdco's three proposed new air quality permits and will reschedule it. > Cancelation of Fermi Equipment Holdco, LLC'S proposed new Air Quality Permit Numbers 183462, PSDTX1704, AND GHGPSDTX271, the meeting will be rescheduled for a later date. Source (primary_official): https://www.tceq.texas.gov/agency/decisions/hearings/public-meeting-fermi-equipment-holdco-llc-183462-psdtx1704-and-ghgpsdtx271 ### The case appears on TCEQ's calendar of public meetings and hearings on permitting cases as an air new source review matter in Carson County. > Cancelation of Public Meeting: Fermi Equipment Holdco, LLC, 183462, PSDTX1704, AND GHGPSDTX271 Source (primary_official): https://www.tceq.texas.gov/agency/decisions/hearings --- # TCEQ canceled the San Antonio notice and comment hearing on Vantage Data Centers TX11's air permit O4791 The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality had set a notice and comment hearing for August 17th, 2026 in San Antonio. It concerns air permit O4791 held by Vantage Data Centers TX11, LLC. The agency posted a cancelation and said the hearing will be rescheduled for a later date. The facility is in Bexar County. Written comments still go to the Office of the Chief Clerk. - Topic: land-water-and-permitting - Decided by: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Office of the Chief Clerk (state-agency) - Where: Bexar - Statistical areas: - San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX - Status: pending - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://www.tceq.texas.gov/agency/decisions/hearings/notice-and-comment-hearing-vantage-data-centers-tx11-llc-o4791 - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-08-11 · filed: last modified date shown on the TCEQ cancelation page - 2026-08-17 · hearing: notice and comment hearing as originally scheduled, 7:00 PM Central, Courtyard by Marriott San Antonio SeaWorld/Westover Hills, since canceled ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-19 · Checked and unchanged. The notice states the hearing will be rescheduled for a later date, and no new date is given. - 2026-08-22 · Checked and unchanged. The cancelation notice still says the hearing will be rescheduled for a later date and gives no new date. The originally scheduled August 17th date has now passed with no replacement. - 2026-08-25 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-08-28 · Checked and unchanged. The San Antonio hearing on Vantage Data Centers TX11's air permit is still canceled and TCEQ has not posted a new date for it. Written comments to the Office of the Chief Clerk are still the only route in. - 2026-09-01 · TCEQ's San Antonio hearing cancellation still stands, while the Vantage air-permit proceeding remains unresolved. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-05 · The San Antonio hearing on the Vantage air permit is still canceled and the agency has posted no replacement date. The permit application is still live. - 2026-09-08 · The canceled San Antonio hearing on the Vantage air permit has not been rescheduled. The permit application is still pending with no dated public step. - 2026-09-09 · The San Antonio notice and comment hearing on the Vantage air permit is still canceled and no replacement date has been set. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-16 · The San Antonio hearing on the Vantage air permit is still canceled rather than rescheduled. The permit application is still pending with no new date for the public to speak to it. - 2026-09-19 · The canceled hearing on the air permit has not been reset, so a resident still has no date to appear on. - 2026-09-23 · The San Antonio hearing is still canceled and no replacement date has been set. - 2026-09-26 · The San Antonio hearing on the Vantage air permit is still canceled, and no new date has been posted. - 2026-09-29 · TCEQ has posted no new date for the San Antonio hearing on the Vantage TX11 air permit it canceled. - 2026-10-02 · TCEQ has set no new date for the San Antonio hearing on Vantage's TX11 air permit. - 2026-10-05 · TCEQ's cancellation of the San Antonio hearing on the Vantage air permit still stands, with no new hearing date posted. - 2026-10-08 · TCEQ has set no new date for the Vantage air permit hearing it canceled in San Antonio. - 2026-10-11 · TCEQ has still set no new date for the Vantage air permit hearing it canceled. - 2026-10-15 · TCEQ still lists no new date for the Vantage air permit hearing it canceled. - 2026-10-18 · The hearing on the Vantage air permit in San Antonio is still listed as canceled, with no new date. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-10-24 · TCEQ's notice canceling the San Antonio hearing on Vantage's air permit still stands as posted. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### TCEQ canceled the notice and comment hearing on Vantage Data Centers TX11's permit O4791 and will reschedule it. > The hearing will be rescheduled for a later date. Source (primary_official): https://www.tceq.texas.gov/agency/decisions/hearings/notice-and-comment-hearing-vantage-data-centers-tx11-llc-o4791 ### The canceled hearing concerned Vantage Data Centers TX11, LLC and permit O4791. > Cancellation of Notice & Comment Hearing: Vantage Data Centers TX11, LLC, O4791 Source (primary_official): https://www.tceq.texas.gov/agency/decisions/hearings/notice-and-comment-hearing-vantage-data-centers-tx11-llc-o4791 --- # Tarrant Regional Water District says it has signed no water supply contract for a data center and that the Cedar Creek request was withdrawn The Tarrant Regional Water District publishes a standing page on data center raw water requests after developers approached it about supply from the Cedar Creek system. The district states that the developer and West Cedar Creek Municipal Utility District formally withdrew their requests and the project is no longer proceeding. The district also states that it has entered into no new water supply contracts specifically to serve data centers. It has not raised contract volumes for existing customers on that basis either. The TRWD Board of Directors is the body that decides raw water supply contracts, and it does so at monthly open meetings that are broadcast. The page was last updated on July 27th, 2026. - Topic: land-water-and-permitting - Decided by: Tarrant Regional Water District Board of Directors (special-district) - Where: Tarrant, Henderson - Statistical areas: - Athens, TX - Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://www.trwd.com/resource/data-center-water-request/ - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-06-23 · hearing: TRWD Open Hall Meeting at the Mabank Pavilion, 5:30 to 7:30 PM, referenced on the page - 2026-07-27 · filed: last updated date shown on the TRWD data center water request page ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-19 · Checked and unchanged. The district still states it has entered into no new water supply contracts to serve data center projects and has increased no contract volumes for that purpose. The page carries a July 27th stamp. - 2026-08-22 · Checked and unchanged. The district still states it has entered into no new water supply contracts to serve data center projects and has increased no contract volumes for that purpose. - 2026-08-25 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-08-28 · Checked and unchanged. The district's standing page still says the Cedar Creek requests were withdrawn and that it has signed no water supply contract for a data center. - 2026-09-01 · The regional water district still reports no data-center supply contract and a withdrawn Cedar Creek request. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-05 · The water district still says it has signed no data center supply contract and the Cedar Creek request is still withdrawn. - 2026-09-08 · The Tarrant Regional Water District still says it holds no data center water supply contract, and the Cedar Creek request is still withdrawn. - 2026-09-09 · Tarrant Regional Water District still says it has signed no water supply contract for a data center. That statement stands as the district published it. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-16 · The water district still says it has signed no data center supply contract, and the Cedar Creek request is still withdrawn. Nothing has been filed to reopen it. - 2026-09-19 · The district still says it has signed no water supply contract for a data center, and the withdrawn request has not been refiled. - 2026-09-23 · The water district still says it has signed no data center supply contract. - 2026-09-26 · The water district still says it has signed no supply contract for a data center, and the Cedar Creek request is still withdrawn. - 2026-09-29 · The Tarrant Regional Water District still reports no data center supply contract signed, and the Cedar Creek request stays withdrawn. - 2026-10-02 · The water district still says it has signed no supply contract with a data center, and the Cedar Creek request is still withdrawn. - 2026-10-05 · Tarrant Regional Water District still says it has signed no water supply contract for a data center. - 2026-10-08 · Tarrant Regional Water District still says it holds no water contract with a data center. - 2026-10-11 · Tarrant Regional Water District still says it holds no water supply contract with any data center. - 2026-10-15 · Tarrant Regional Water District still says it holds no water supply contract with a data center. - 2026-10-18 · The water district still says it has signed no supply contract with a data center. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · Tarrant Regional Water District still says it has signed no data center water contract, and the Cedar Creek request stays withdrawn. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The developer behind the Cedar Creek area data center and West Cedar Creek MUD withdrew their raw water requests to TRWD and the project stopped. > the developer and West Cedar Creek MUD have formally withdrawn their requests to obtain water from TRWD, and the project is no longer proceeding. Source (primary_official): https://www.trwd.com/resource/data-center-water-request/ ### TRWD states it has signed no new water supply contract specifically to serve a data center. > TRWD has not entered into any new water supply contracts specifically to serve data center projects, nor has TRWD increased contract volumes for existing customers based on requests specifically made to serve data centers. Source (primary_official): https://www.trwd.com/resource/data-center-water-request/ ### The TRWD board is the decider on raw water supply contracts and votes in public. > The TRWD Board of Directors makes the final decision on all new raw water supply contracts. Source (primary_official): https://www.trwd.com/resource/data-center-water-request/ --- # Blanco-Pedernales Groundwater Conservation District signed a resolution asking the Legislature to clarify district authority over data centers The Blanco-Pedernales Groundwater Conservation District board met on April 16th, 2026 and signed Resolution No. 20260416-1 requesting legislative clarification on the regulation of data centers. The district publishes the signed resolution alongside the meeting minutes and its other board orders from that date. A groundwater conservation district is the body that issues an operating permit when a large user drills its own well. The district is asking for statutory footing before that question reaches it. The same meeting produced a board order granting a commercial permit to another applicant, which shows the routine permitting work the district does month to month. - Topic: land-water-and-permitting - Decided by: Blanco-Pedernales Groundwater Conservation District (special-district) - Where: Blanco - Status: decided - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://www.blancogroundwatertx.gov/2026-04-16-district-meeting - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-04-16 · signed: district meeting at which Resolution No. 20260416-1 was signed ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-19 · Checked and unchanged. The district's April 16th resolution requesting legislative clarification on the regulation of data centers is still the most recent action of its kind on the district's record. - 2026-08-22 · Checked and unchanged. The district's April 16th resolution asking the Legislature to clarify the regulation of data centers is still the most recent action of its kind on the district's record. - 2026-08-25 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-08-28 · Checked and unchanged. The Blanco-Pedernales resolution still stands as signed and the Legislature has not clarified what a groundwater conservation district may do about a data center. The district is still permitting wells under the authority it already had. - 2026-09-01 · The groundwater district's request for clearer legislative authority over data centers remains its adopted position. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-05 · The groundwater district's resolution asking for clarified authority over data centers still stands. The Legislature has not answered it. - 2026-09-08 · The Blanco-Pedernales district's request that the Legislature clarify groundwater authority over data centers still stands unanswered. - 2026-09-09 · The Blanco-Pedernales district's resolution asking the Legislature for authority over large water users is still standing and has drawn no legislative response. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-16 · The groundwater district's resolution asking the Legislature to clarify its authority over data centers is still unanswered. The district still does not know what it may do. - 2026-09-19 · The district's request that the Legislature clarify its authority over data centers still stands unanswered. - 2026-09-23 · The groundwater district's request to the Legislature still stands and the authority question is still open. - 2026-09-26 · The groundwater district's resolution still asks the Legislature to settle what authority it has over data centers. - 2026-09-29 · The Blanco-Pedernales resolution still asks lawmakers to say what a groundwater district may require of a data center. - 2026-10-02 · The Blanco-Pedernales district's resolution still stands, asking lawmakers to spell out what a groundwater district may require of a data center. - 2026-10-05 · The Blanco-Pedernales district's resolution asking the Legislature for clarity still stands as signed. - 2026-10-08 · The Blanco-Pedernales district's resolution asking lawmakers for clarity is unchanged. - 2026-10-11 · The Blanco-Pedernales district's resolution asking lawmakers to clarify its authority stands unchanged. - 2026-10-15 · The Blanco-Pedernales district's resolution asking lawmakers to settle its authority reads as signed. - 2026-10-18 · The Blanco-Pedernales resolution asking the Legislature to settle its authority over data centers reads as signed. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · The Blanco-Pedernales district's resolution asking lawmakers to clarify its authority over data centers still stands as signed. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The district signed a resolution numbered 20260416-1 requesting legislative clarification on regulating data centers. > SIGNED RESOLUTION NO. 20260416-1 REQUESTING LEGISLATIVE CLARIFICATION RE. REGULATION OF DATA CENTERS Source (primary_official): https://www.blancogroundwatertx.gov/2026-04-16-district-meeting ### At the same April 16th, 2026 meeting the district signed a board order granting a commercial groundwater permit to another applicant. > SIGNED BOARD ORDER NO. 20260416-2 GRANTING COMMERCIAL PERMIT TO THE WOODS AT FLAT ROCK CREEK Source (primary_official): https://www.blancogroundwatertx.gov/2026-04-16-district-meeting --- # San Marcos City Council voted 4 to 3 to define data centers in its land development code and make them ineligible citywide The San Marcos City Council voted on June 16th, 2026 to define data centers in the city's zoning rules and make them ineligible for development anywhere inside the city. Council members cited concern that the facilities would draw water and energy away from the local community. The vote came after a long fight over a proposed campus and is the first ban of its kind by a Texas city. The city adopted an amended Land Development Code on the same date under ORD-2026-08, effective that day. - Topic: land-water-and-permitting - Decided by: San Marcos City Council (city) - Where: Hays - Statistical areas: - Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://www.sanmarcostx.gov/2859/Code-Updates - Last checked: 2026-10-23 ## Dates - 2026-06-16 · ordered: council vote of 4 to 3 to make data centers ineligible in every zoning district - 2026-06-16 · effective: adoption and effective date of the amended Land Development Code, ORD-2026-08 ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-19 · The council's data center definition is unconfirmed against the city's own code page. That page records the amended Land Development Code adopted June 16th with 283 amendments and names no data center provision among them. - 2026-08-22 · The council's data center definition is still unconfirmed against the city's own code page. That page still records the amended Land Development Code adopted June 16th and still names no data center amendment. - 2026-08-26 · Checked and unchanged. The zoning definition that makes data centers ineligible anywhere in the city still stands and the council member's account of the debate is still published. Both quotes are corrected to the sentences the source actually prints. - 2026-08-29 · Checked and unchanged. Data centers are still defined in the city's land development code and still ineligible anywhere inside San Marcos. No later council action softens the amendment. - 2026-09-01 · San Marcos's citywide exclusion of data centers remains in its adopted land-development rules. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-05 · San Marcos still defines data centers in its land development code and still makes them ineligible across the city. The vote has not been revisited. - 2026-09-08 · San Marcos still defines data centers in its land development code and still makes them ineligible everywhere in the city. - 2026-09-09 · San Marcos still defines a data center in its land development code and still makes one a conditional use. The narrow vote that put it there has not been revisited. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-16 · The San Marcos definition still stands and data centers are still ineligible across the city under it. The narrow margin has not been revisited. - 2026-09-19 · Data centers are still defined in the land development code and still ineligible across the city. - 2026-09-23 · San Marcos still has a definition of a data center in its land code and still allows one nowhere. - 2026-09-26 · San Marcos still defines a data center in its land development code and still permits one in no district. - 2026-09-29 · Under the San Marcos land development code a data center is still a defined use permitted in no district. - 2026-10-02 · San Marcos's 4 to 3 vote to define data centers in its land code stands in the city's record. The news accounts of it bar automated readers. - 2026-10-05 · San Marcos still defines a data center in its land development code as the council's 4 to 3 vote left it. - 2026-10-08 · San Marcos's data center definition is unconfirmed today, because its sources did not answer. - 2026-10-09 · San Marcos's council action still reads as recorded, with data centers defined in the code and ineligible citywide. - 2026-10-12 · San Marcos still defines data centers in its land code and still makes them ineligible anywhere in the city. - 2026-10-15 · San Marcos still defines data centers in its land code and bars them from every district. The station's report is unconfirmed. - 2026-10-20 · The city's code updates page still says San Marcos defines data centers in its land development code. The television report on the 4 to 3 vote stays unconfirmed. - 2026-10-23 · San Marcos still defines data centers in its land development code, as the city's code updates page says. The television account of the 4 to 3 vote stays unconfirmed. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The council voted 4 to 3 on June 16th to define data centers in zoning law and make them ineligible for development anywhere in the city. > San Marcos City Council voted 4-3 on June 16 to define data centers and make them ineligible for any part of the city in its zoning laws, citing concerns that these developments would funnel water and energy resources from the local community. Source (journalism): https://www.ksat.com/news/texas/2026/06/30/san-marcos-becomes-the-first-texas-city-to-ban-data-centers-testing-its-local-control/ ### Council member Lorenzo Gonzalez said the promised benefits stayed speculative while residents' concerns went unresolved. > The promised benefits remained speculative while many of the concerns raised by residents remained unresolved. Source (journalism): https://www.ksat.com/news/texas/2026/06/30/san-marcos-becomes-the-first-texas-city-to-ban-data-centers-testing-its-local-control/ ### San Marcos adopted an amended Land Development Code on June 16th, 2026 under ordinance ORD-2026-08. > The City of San Marcos updated the Land Development Code (LDC) and Design Manual which together guides how the city grows and develops. Source (primary_official): https://www.sanmarcostx.gov/2859/Code-Updates --- # Fort Worth City Council unanimously began a 90 day data center moratorium and adopted grid filing requirements over one dissent The Fort Worth City Council took three data center votes on August 11th, 2026. Members unanimously approved the first steps toward a 90 day moratorium on accepting, processing and approving new data center applications inside the city. Two further items passed over a single dissent. One creates a Data Center and Infrastructure Commission. The other amends the city code so applicants must document their filings for connection to the Texas grid. The pause is not in force yet. Under the city timeline it takes effect on February 16th after public hearings and further votes, and zoning applications filed before then stay outside it. - Topic: land-water-and-permitting - Decided by: Fort Worth City Council (city) - Where: Tarrant - Statistical areas: - Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX - Status: open - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://www.keranews.org/news/2026-08-12/data-center-moratorium-takes-first-steps-after-fort-worth-city-councils-unanimous-vote - Last checked: 2026-10-20 ## Dates - 2026-08-11 · ordered: council votes on the moratorium process, the commission and the code amendment - 2027-02-16 · effective: date the 90 day pause would take effect if adopted after public hearings ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-19 · Checked and unchanged. The 90 day pause still takes effect February 16th and only after public hearings and further votes. - 2026-08-22 · Checked and unchanged. The council's August 11th votes still stand. They include the requirement that a data center application carry proof that the Public Utility Commission of Texas and ERCOT have approved its grid connection. - 2026-08-25 · Checked and unchanged. Still open, with no dated movement. - 2026-08-28 · Checked and unchanged. Fort Worth's moratorium on accepting and processing new data center applications is still running, and the grid filing requirements adopted with it still apply. The city has posted no early lift. - 2026-09-01 · Fort Worth's moratorium and grid-filing direction remain active while permanent data-center rules are still in development. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. Still open, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-05 · Fort Worth's moratorium is still running and the grid filing requirements adopted with it are still in force. No extension has been voted. - 2026-09-08 · Fort Worth's data center moratorium is still running and the grid filing requirements adopted with it are still in force. - 2026-09-09 · Fort Worth's data center moratorium is still running and the grid filing rules the council adopted alongside it are still in force. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. Still open, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. Still open, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-16 · Fort Worth's moratorium is still running and the grid filing requirements adopted alongside it are still in force. No extension and no early lift has been noticed. - 2026-09-19 · The moratorium is still running and the grid filing requirements adopted with it are still in force. - 2026-09-23 · Fort Worth's pause is still running and its grid filing requirements still apply to anything filed during it. - 2026-09-26 · Fort Worth's moratorium is still running, and its grid filing requirements still apply to what is filed in the meantime. - 2026-09-29 · Fort Worth's data center moratorium is in effect, and anyone filing in the meantime still owes the grid information the council adopted. - 2026-10-02 · Fort Worth's moratorium still reads as Community Impact reported it. KERA's account would not load, so its part of the entry is unconfirmed. - 2026-10-03 · Fort Worth's moratorium still reads as Community Impact reported it. KERA's account would not load again, so its part of the entry is unconfirmed. - 2026-10-04 · Community Impact's fetched account supports the council's first steps toward a 90 day pause and the February 16th adoption timeline after hearings and readings. The pause is not yet in force. KERA's cited account refused the fetch, so its wording remains unconfirmed. Both existing claim outcomes were checked against Community Impact's full account. - 2026-10-07 · Community Impact's account of Fort Worth's first steps toward the pause still reads as cited, and the pause is not yet in force. KERA's account refused the request, so its part of the entry is unconfirmed. - 2026-10-08 · Community Impact's account of the first steps toward Fort Worth's pause still reads as cited. KERA's account and the city's own record are unconfirmed, so whether the hearings have been set is not known. - 2026-10-09 · Community Impact's account confirms the first steps toward Fort Worth's pause and the proposed adoption timeline after hearings and readings. The pause is not yet in force under that timeline. KERA's account remains unavailable, so its exact wording is unconfirmed. - 2026-10-14 · Community Impact's account still reads as cited, with the first steps toward a pause taken and no adoption reported. KERA's account and the city's own record are unconfirmed, so their wording is not known. - 2026-10-17 · Community Impact's account still describes the first steps toward a Fort Worth pause, with hearings and readings to come and no adoption reported. KERA's account is unconfirmed, so its exact wording is not known. - 2026-10-20 · Community Impact still reports only the first steps toward Fort Worth's 90 day pause, with no adoption since. KERA's account stays unconfirmed, as its address now forwards to a page that refused the request. - 2026-10-23 · Community Impact's account and KERA's are unconfirmed today, since both refused the request or did not answer in full. The record still holds Fort Worth's pause at its first steps. - 2026-10-24 · The record still holds Fort Worth's data center pause at its first steps. KERA's account is unconfirmed today, since the station refused the request. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The council approved the first steps toward a 90 day moratorium on new data center applications. > the first steps to initiate a 90-day moratorium on accepting, processing and approving new applications for data centers Source (journalism): https://communityimpact.com/keller-roanoke-northeast-fort-worth/government/fort-worth-city-council-approves-steps-to-start-moratorium-process-on-data-centers/ ### The pause would not begin until February 16th and only after public hearings and further votes. > If a moratorium is ultimately approved, the 90-day pause will take effect Feb. 16, after public hearings have been held and votes taken as required by state law and reports and studies from the city's Data Center & Infrastructure Committee have been submitted to Fort Worth officials. Source (journalism): https://www.keranews.org/news/2026-08-12/data-center-moratorium-takes-first-steps-after-fort-worth-city-councils-unanimous-vote --- # TCEQ has four data center air permit applications posted with published public notices, including Crusoe's two Texas campuses TCEQ's pending new source review page lists air permit applications whose notices are open to the public. Four of them are data centers. Aligned Data Centers REIT LLC is listed at ADC Plano and Amazon.com Services LLC at TXZ5. Crusoe Energy Systems LLC appears twice, at the Longhorn Data Center and at the Goodnight Data Center. Each row carries a plain language summary in English and Spanish and a notice of receipt of application. Several also carry a notice of application and preliminary decision, which is the document that opens the formal comment window. Crusoe's Longhorn permits include prevention of significant deterioration and greenhouse gas PSD authorizations. That is the permit family covering on site power generation rather than a few backup engines. - Topic: land-water-and-permitting - Decided by: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Air Permits Division (state-agency) - Where: Statewide - Status: pending - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://www.tceq.texas.gov/permitting/air/newsourcereview/airpermits-pendingpermit-apps - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-08-14 · comment opens: date this listing was fetched and the four data center applications were shown with published notices ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-19 · Checked and unchanged. The pending notice list still carries all four data center applications, Aligned at ADC Plano, Amazon at TXZ5 and Crusoe at both Longhorn and Goodnight. - 2026-08-22 · Checked and unchanged. The pending notice list still carries all four data center applications. They are Aligned at ADC Plano, Amazon at TXZ5 and Crusoe at both the Longhorn and Goodnight campuses, each with its published notices. - 2026-08-26 · Checked and unchanged. The four applications are still posted with published notices and the agency still requires an applicant to publish notice and a plain language summary. - 2026-08-29 · Checked and unchanged. The pending applications list still carries the four data center air permits with their published notices. The requirement that an applicant publish notice and provide a plain language summary is unchanged. - 2026-09-02 · The applications are still posted with published public notices and none has been withdrawn. - 2026-09-05 · The agency's pending permit list still carries the data center applications with published notice. None has been withdrawn. - 2026-09-08 · The state environmental agency still posts the same four data center air permit applications with public notices, and Crusoe's two Texas campuses are still among them. None has moved to a decision. - 2026-09-09 · The four data center air permit applications are still posted as pending with published public notice. - 2026-09-12 · The four data center air permit applications are still posted as pending with published public notice, and the agency's plain language summary requirement still governs them. - 2026-09-13 · The data center air permit applications are still posted as pending with published notice, and none has moved off that list. - 2026-09-16 · The agency still has four data center air permit applications posted with published notices. None has moved to a decision. - 2026-09-19 · The applications are still posted as pending with their public notices published, which is the point at which a neighbor can still ask for a contested hearing. - 2026-09-24 · The applications are still posted as pending with their public notices, which is the stage at which a neighbor can still ask for a contested hearing. - 2026-09-27 · The pending permit list still carries the data center applications with their public notices, so the window to ask for a contested hearing is still the live one. - 2026-09-30 · The agency's pending permit list still carries the data center applications with their published notices. - 2026-10-03 · The agency's list of pending air permits still carries the data center applications with their published notices. - 2026-10-06 · The agency's pending air permit list still names the same data center applications, Crusoe's Longhorn and Goodnight campuses among them, each with its notice posted. - 2026-10-09 · The agency's pending air permit list still carries the data center applications, Crusoe's two campuses among them. - 2026-10-12 · Crusoe's two campuses are still among the data center air permits pending at the agency, each with its notice published. - 2026-10-15 · Crusoe's two campuses are still among the data center air permits the agency lists as pending. - 2026-10-18 · The agency's list of pending air permit notices still answers, though the quoted entries were not found in it this time, so their wording is unconfirmed. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-10-24 · TCEQ's page of pending air permit applications with published notices still carries the data center applications, Crusoe's two campuses among them. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### TCEQ requires air permit applicants to publish notice and provide plain language summaries under state rule. > Air permit applicants are required to publish notice and provide plain language summaries in accordance with 30 TAC Chapter 39 Subchapter H. These documents are available in English and may be required in alternative languages. Source (primary_official): https://www.tceq.texas.gov/permitting/air/newsourcereview/airpermits-pendingpermit-apps ### One of the listed pending applications is a Crusoe Energy Systems facility named Longhorn Data Center. > LONGHORN DATA CENTER Source (primary_official): https://www.tceq.texas.gov/permitting/air/newsourcereview/airpermits-pendingpermit-apps ### Another listed pending application is a Crusoe Energy Systems facility named Goodnight Data Center. > GOODNIGHT DATA CENTER Source (primary_official): https://www.tceq.texas.gov/permitting/air/newsourcereview/airpermits-pendingpermit-apps --- # TCEQ issues preliminary decision and opens comment on Crusoe's gas power plant at the Abilene data center campus The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality's executive director finished technical review and drafted a permit for an electric power generation facility at 615 Farm-to-Market Road 2404 outside Abilene. That is the address of the Stargate campus in Taylor County. The notice covers three permits at once. They are state air quality permit 182126, PSD permit PSDTX1688 and greenhouse gas PSD permit GHGPSDTX263, all sought by Crusoe Technologies LLC. TCEQ processed the application in an expedited manner under its own rules. Written comments are due within 30 days of the newspaper publication of the notice. A person who may be affected by the emissions can request a contested case hearing on the state and PSD permits, though not on the greenhouse gas permit. - Topic: land-water-and-permitting - Decided by: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (state-agency) - Where: Taylor - Statistical areas: - Abilene, TX - Status: open - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://www.tceq.texas.gov/downloads/permitting/air/bilingual/pending-permit-notices/182126-napd-english.pdf - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2025-11-07 · filed: Application submitted to TCEQ - 2026-08-05 · ordered: Notice issuance date for the executive director's preliminary decision and draft permit ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-18 · Checked and unchanged. The notice still names permits 182126, PSDTX1688 and GHGPSDTX263 for Crusoe Technologies. The comment window runs 30 days from newspaper publication. - 2026-08-21 · Checked and unchanged. The notice still carries a preliminary decision and draft permit for Crusoe Technologies LLC under permits 182126, PSDTX1688 and GHGPSDTX263, with a notice issuance date of August 5th, 2026. The comment window still runs thirty days from newspaper publication, and the notice still names no publication date. - 2026-08-25 · Checked and unchanged. Still open, with no dated movement. - 2026-08-26 · Checked and unchanged. Still open, with no dated movement. - 2026-08-29 · Checked and unchanged. The executive director's preliminary decision on the gas plant at the Abilene campus still stands and the comment period on it is still open. The three permits it covers are unaltered. - 2026-09-01 · TCEQ's preliminary decision on the Abilene campus power plant remains open to public comment. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. Still open, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-05 · The preliminary decision on the Crusoe gas plant still stands and the comment door is still open. A reader can still file. - 2026-09-08 · The state environmental agency's preliminary decision on the Crusoe gas plant at the Abilene campus still stands, and the comment room is still the way in. - 2026-09-09 · The comment window on Crusoe's gas plant at the Abilene data center is still open and the preliminary decision it rests on is unchanged. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. Still open, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. Still open, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-16 · The comment window on the Crusoe gas plant at the Abilene campus is still open, so a reader still has a dated way to be heard. The preliminary decision has not been superseded. - 2026-09-19 · The comment period on the gas plant's preliminary decision is still the way in, and the agency has issued no final permit. - 2026-09-23 · The comment file on the Abilene gas plant is still open on the preliminary decision. - 2026-09-26 · The comment file on the Abilene gas plant's preliminary decision is still open at the environmental agency. - 2026-09-29 · Comment on TCEQ's preliminary decision for Crusoe's gas plant at the Abilene campus is still being taken. - 2026-10-02 · TCEQ is still taking comment on its preliminary decision for the gas plant at Crusoe's Abilene campus. - 2026-10-05 · TCEQ's preliminary decision on Crusoe's gas plant at the Abilene data center still stands, with the permit not yet final. - 2026-10-08 · Crusoe's gas plant permit at the Abilene campus is still a preliminary decision and has not been made final. - 2026-10-11 · Crusoe's gas plant permit for the Abilene campus is still at the preliminary decision stage. - 2026-10-15 · Crusoe's gas plant permit for the Abilene campus remains at the preliminary decision. - 2026-10-18 · Crusoe's gas plant permit for the Abilene campus still stands at the preliminary decision, with the comment route as listed. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. Still open, with no dated movement. - 2026-10-24 · TCEQ's preliminary decision on Crusoe's gas plant at the Abilene campus still stands as published. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### Crusoe Technologies LLC has applied for three air permits authorizing an electric power generation facility at the Abilene data center campus address in Taylor County. > Crusoe Technologies LLC, 255 Fillmore Street, Denver, CO 80206-5030, has applied to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) for issuance of proposed State Air Quality Permit 182126, issuance of Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Air Quality Permit PSDTX1688, and issuance of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) PSD Air Quality Permit GHGPSDTX263 for emissions of GHGs, which would authorize construction of an electric power generation facility located at 615 Farm-to-Market Road 2404, Abilene, Taylor County, Texas 79601. Source (primary_official): https://www.tceq.texas.gov/downloads/permitting/air/bilingual/pending-permit-notices/182126-napd-english.pdf ### The application was filed with TCEQ on November 7th, 2025. > This application was submitted to the TCEQ on November 7, 2025. Source (primary_official): https://www.tceq.texas.gov/downloads/permitting/air/bilingual/pending-permit-notices/182126-napd-english.pdf ### TCEQ handled the application through its expedited permitting track. > This application was processed in an expedited manner, as allowed by the commission’s rules in 30 Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 101, Subchapter J. Source (primary_official): https://www.tceq.texas.gov/downloads/permitting/air/bilingual/pending-permit-notices/182126-napd-english.pdf ### The public comment window runs 30 days from newspaper publication of the notice. > You may submit additional written public comments within 30 days of the date of newspaper publication of this notice in the manner set forth in the AGENCY CONTACTS AND INFORMATION paragraph below. Source (primary_official): https://www.tceq.texas.gov/downloads/permitting/air/bilingual/pending-permit-notices/182126-napd-english.pdf ### No contested case hearing is available on the greenhouse gas portion of the application. > There is no opportunity to request a contested case hearing regarding the portion of the application for GHG PSD Air Quality Permit Number GHGPSDTX263. Source (primary_official): https://www.tceq.texas.gov/downloads/permitting/air/bilingual/pending-permit-notices/182126-napd-english.pdf ### The notice carries an issuance date of August 5th, 2026. > Notice Issuance Date: August 5, 2026 Source (primary_official): https://www.tceq.texas.gov/downloads/permitting/air/bilingual/pending-permit-notices/182126-napd-english.pdf --- # San Angelo City Council caps data center cooling water by ordinance San Angelo passed Ordinance 2026-078, which adds Section 11.02.043 to the city water service rules. It puts hard numbers on how much city water a data center may take for cooling. Initial cooling system fill can't exceed 8.0 gallons per square foot of gross building area for each building. Routine makeup water can't exceed six percent of the installed cooling loop volume per building per calendar year, and cooling water has to be metered separately from other use. Any exceedance needs City Manager approval and has to be reported in writing to the City Council within five business days. The ordinance was introduced with a public hearing on May 19th, 2026 and passed on June 16th, 2026, taking effect the same day. - Topic: land-water-and-permitting - Decided by: City of San Angelo City Council (city) - Where: Tom Green - Statistical areas: - San Angelo, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://www.sanangelo.gov/803/Data-Center-Information - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-05-19 · hearing: Introduced with public hearing - 2026-06-16 · ordered: Finally passed by City Council, reported 7 to 0 - 2026-06-16 · effective: Ordinance effective date ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-19 · Checked and unchanged. The city's data center page lists the water usage ordinance approved June 16th as the most recent council action and carries nothing from July or August. - 2026-08-22 · Checked and unchanged. Ordinance 2026-078 of June 16th still amends Chapter 11 on utilities to cap data center cooling water, and the city's record carries no later amendment to it. - 2026-08-26 · Checked and unchanged. The cooling water cap still stands as an ordinance, the closed loop requirement is still written into it, and the annual makeup water definition is still the one quoted here. - 2026-08-29 · Checked and unchanged. The cooling water cap is still in the city's utilities chapter and the closed loop requirement still applies to every data center facility. The makeup water limit the ordinance sets is unaltered. - 2026-09-02 · The ordinance stands as adopted and the city's own data center page still carries it. - 2026-09-05 · San Angelo's cap on data center cooling water still stands in the ordinance as adopted. - 2026-09-08 · San Angelo's cap on data center cooling water is still on the books as the council passed it. The ordinance text is unchanged. - 2026-09-09 · San Angelo's cap on data center cooling water is still in the utilities chapter of the city code, with the closed-loop requirement intact. - 2026-09-12 · San Angelo's cap on data center cooling water is still in the utilities chapter of the city code, and the closed-loop requirement under it is intact. - 2026-09-13 · San Angelo's cap on data center cooling water is still in force, and the city still publishes the ordinance behind it. - 2026-09-16 · San Angelo's cap on data center cooling water is still the ordinance the council passed, and the city's own data center page still points at it. Nothing has amended the cap. - 2026-09-19 · The cap on cooling water is still the city's ordinance and the council has not revisited it. - 2026-09-24 · The cap on cooling water is unconfirmed this run. The city's own data center page and the ordinance posted beside it could not be read again. - 2026-09-26 · The ordinance capping data center cooling water is still posted by the city beside its data center page, and closed loop cooling is still what it requires. - 2026-09-29 · San Angelo's cap on data center cooling water stands in the ordinance the city posts. - 2026-10-02 · San Angelo's ordinance capping data center cooling water still reads as adopted. - 2026-10-05 · San Angelo's ordinance capping the water a data center may draw for cooling still reads as adopted. The city's data center page still points to it. - 2026-10-08 · San Angelo's limit on data center cooling water still reads in the ordinance as the council passed it. - 2026-10-11 · San Angelo's ordinance still caps cooling makeup water and requires closed loop cooling at every data center. - 2026-10-15 · San Angelo's ordinance, read in full in the city's own file, still caps cooling makeup water and requires closed loop cooling. - 2026-10-18 · San Angelo's data center page and its ordinance file still carry the cap on cooling water. The minute record copy is unconfirmed. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · San Angelo's ordinance capping data center cooling water still stands in the city's water code. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The council adopted Ordinance 2026-078 adding a data center section to the city water service rules. > AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN ANGELO TEXAS, AMENDING CHAPTER 11 “UTILITIES,” ARTICLE 11.02 “WATER AND SEWER SYSTEMS,” DIVISION 2 “WATER SERVICE,” BY ADDING SECTION 11.02.043 “DATA CENTER”; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND, PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE Source (primary_official): https://www.sanangelo.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2315 ### Initial cooling system fill is capped at 8.0 gallons per square foot of gross building area per data center building. > Initial Fill: Initial cooling system fill shall not exceed 8.0 gallons per square foot of Gross Building Area (as defined in the approved building permit) for each Data Center building. Source (primary_official): https://www.sanangelo.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2315 ### Annual makeup water is capped at six percent of installed cooling loop volume per building per year. > Annual Makeup Water: Routine cooling system makeup water (to replace minor losses from valve packing, gasket weepage, and maintenance drain-downs) shall not exceed six percent (6%) of the total installed cooling loop volume per Data Center building per calendar year. Source (primary_official): https://www.sanangelo.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2315 ### Cooling water must be metered separately from other water use at the facility. > Cooling water usage shall be metered separately from other water usage at Data Center facilities. Source (primary_official): https://www.sanangelo.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2315 ### Closed loop cooling is mandatory and is written as eliminating continuous withdrawals from the city supply for heat rejection. > All Data Center facilities shall employ closed-loop cooling systems, or similar cooling technology, which minimizes water use, and eliminates the need for continuous withdrawals from the City’s public water supply for heat rejection. Source (primary_official): https://www.sanangelo.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2315 ### The ordinance was introduced on May 19th, 2026 and finally passed on June 16th, 2026. > INTRODUCED with public hearing the 19th day of May 2026 and finally PASSED this 16th day of June 2026. Source (primary_official): https://www.sanangelo.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2315 ### The City of San Angelo reports the water usage ordinance passed 7 to 0. > Approved 7-0 at the June 16, 2026 City Council meeting. Source (primary_official): https://www.sanangelo.gov/803/Data-Center-Information --- # San Angelo writes data centers into its zoning code and makes them a conditional use only San Angelo created Section 430 of its zoning ordinance, the first full land use rulebook for data centers in West Texas. New data centers are allowed as a principal use only by Conditional Use, and only in Light Manufacturing and Heavy Manufacturing districts. Each one comes back to a public hearing. The code caps buildings at 75 feet. It bars ground mounted equipment near residentially zoned property and limits noise to 55 dBa at the property line day and night. It also requires a sound modeling study before final site plan approval and a post development sound study after occupancy. The definition it adopted excludes cryptocurrency mining. The ordinance was introduced on May 5th, 2026 and passed on May 19th, 2026. - Topic: data-centers - Decided by: City of San Angelo City Council (city) - Where: Tom Green - Statistical areas: - San Angelo, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://www.sanangelo.gov/803/Data-Center-Information - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-04-20 · hearing: Planning Commission public hearing and recommendation for approval - 2026-04-22 · hearing: City Council special meeting for public input on the data center project and regulations - 2026-05-05 · hearing: Introduced with public hearing - 2026-05-19 · ordered: Finally passed by City Council, reported 6 to 0 - 2026-05-19 · effective: Ordinance effective date ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-19 · Checked and unchanged. The land use regulations approved May 19th are still the governing action listed, and the city's page carries nothing from July or August. - 2026-08-22 · Checked and unchanged. The zoning ordinance still amends Chapter 12 on planning and development to create a specific use standard for data centers, and the city's record carries no later amendment to it. - 2026-08-26 · Checked and unchanged. Data centers are still written into the zoning code as a conditional use and the ordinance text is unchanged. - 2026-08-29 · Checked and unchanged. Data centers are still a defined use in the zoning code and still a conditional use rather than a permitted one. The council has not amended the definition since adopting it. - 2026-09-02 · The zoning change stands and data centers are still a conditional use in the city's code. - 2026-09-05 · San Angelo still carries data centers in its zoning code as a conditional use and nothing else. - 2026-09-08 · San Angelo still defines data centers in its zoning code and still allows them only as a conditional use. - 2026-09-09 · San Angelo still defines a data center in its zoning code and still makes one a conditional use. - 2026-09-12 · San Angelo still defines a data center in its zoning code and still allows one only as a conditional use. - 2026-09-13 · Data centers are still a conditional use in San Angelo's zoning code, and the ordinance that made them one is still the version the city publishes. - 2026-09-16 · Data centers are still a conditional use in the San Angelo code and still nowhere permitted by right. The zoning text is unchanged. - 2026-09-19 · A data center is still a conditional use in the city's zoning code rather than a permitted one, so each one still goes before the commission. - 2026-09-24 · Whether a data center is still a conditional use only in San Angelo's zoning code is unconfirmed this run. The city's own copy of the ordinance could not be read again. - 2026-09-26 · San Angelo's zoning code still treats a data center as a conditional use only, in the ordinance the city posts. - 2026-09-29 · San Angelo's zoning code still allows a data center only as a conditional use. - 2026-10-02 · San Angelo's zoning code still treats a data center as a use of its own, on the terms the ordinance set. - 2026-10-05 · San Angelo's zoning amendment still lists a data center as a conditional use only, in the ordinance text the city posts. - 2026-10-08 · San Angelo's zoning code still carries its data center provisions as adopted. - 2026-10-11 · San Angelo's zoning code still allows a data center only as a conditional use. - 2026-10-15 · San Angelo's zoning ordinance still makes a data center a conditional use only, as the city's file reads. - 2026-10-18 · San Angelo's ordinance file still makes a data center a conditional use only. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · San Angelo's zoning code still makes a data center a conditional use only. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### New data centers are permitted only by Conditional Use and only in the two manufacturing districts. > New data centers shall be permitted as a principal use by Conditional Use (CU) only, in accordance with procedures set forth in Section 208. Source (primary_official): https://www.sanangelo.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2255 ### Conditional Use applications may be made only within Light Manufacturing and Heavy Manufacturing districts. > An application for a CU may be made within ML (Light Manufacturing) and MH (Heavy Manufacturing) Districts. Source (primary_official): https://www.sanangelo.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2255 ### Building height is capped at 75 feet. > Maximum Height: 75 feet, measured at the top of the building plate (roof deck). Source (primary_official): https://www.sanangelo.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2255 ### Noise is limited to 55 dBa at the property line during the day and at night. > Any noise that emanates from all activity associated with any data center is limited to a maximum sound level of 55 dBa during the daytime and 55 dBa at nighttime. Source (primary_official): https://www.sanangelo.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2255 ### The adopted definition of a data center excludes cryptocurrency mining. > A data center shall not include cryptocurrency mining. Source (primary_official): https://www.sanangelo.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2255 ### The ordinance was introduced on May 5th, 2026 and passed on May 19th, 2026. > INTRODUCED with public hearing the 5th day of May 2026, and finally PASSED this 19th day of May, 2026. Source (primary_official): https://www.sanangelo.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2255 ### The City of San Angelo reports the land use regulations passed 6 to 0. > Approved 6-0 at the May 19, 2026 City Council meeting. Source (primary_official): https://www.sanangelo.gov/803/Data-Center-Information --- # San Angelo sets reporting rules for data center coolant discharged into the city sewer San Angelo adopted Ordinance 2026-076, which adds a data center subsection to the city's prohibited discharges rule. Any intentional release of treated cooling fluid into the sanitary sewer is defined as a discharge event, and sampling with laboratory verification has to be completed before each one. Records of volumes, results and dates must be kept for at least three years and handed to the Director of Water Utilities on request. Planned discharges need 72 hours written notice. Emergency discharges have to be reported within 4 hours with a written incident report inside 7 days. The council introduced the ordinance on May 19th, 2026 and adopted it on June 2nd, 2026. - Topic: land-water-and-permitting - Decided by: City of San Angelo City Council (city) - Where: Tom Green - Statistical areas: - San Angelo, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://www.sanangelo.gov/803/Data-Center-Information - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-05-19 · hearing: Introduced with public hearing - 2026-06-02 · ordered: Finally adopted by City Council, reported 5 to 1 - 2026-06-02 · effective: Ordinance effective date ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-19 · Checked and unchanged. The sewer and discharge ordinance approved June 2nd is still the governing action listed, and the city's page carries nothing from July or August. - 2026-08-22 · Checked and unchanged. Ordinance 2026-076 of June 2nd still amends Chapter 11 on utilities to set reporting rules for data center coolant discharged into the city sewer. - 2026-08-26 · Checked and unchanged. The reporting rules for coolant discharged into the city system still stand as adopted. - 2026-08-29 · Checked and unchanged. The reporting rules for coolant discharged into the city system still stand. What an operator has to report and how often is unchanged. - 2026-09-02 · The reporting rules for coolant discharged into the city sewer stand as adopted. - 2026-09-05 · San Angelo's reporting rules for coolant discharged into the city sewer still stand as written. - 2026-09-08 · San Angelo's reporting rules for data center coolant entering the city sewer still stand as adopted, and no variance from them has been posted. - 2026-09-09 · San Angelo's reporting rules for coolant discharged into the city system are still in force as adopted. - 2026-09-12 · San Angelo's reporting rules for coolant discharged into the city sewer are still in force exactly as adopted. - 2026-09-13 · San Angelo's reporting rules for coolant discharged into the city system are still in force as adopted. - 2026-09-16 · The reporting rules for coolant discharged into the San Angelo sewer are still in force as written. No variance or amendment has been posted. - 2026-09-19 · The reporting rules for coolant going into the city sewer are unchanged. - 2026-09-24 · The reporting rules for coolant sent into the city sewer are unconfirmed this run. The ordinance on the city's own site could not be read again. - 2026-09-26 · The reporting rules for coolant sent into the city sewer still stand in the ordinance the city posts. - 2026-09-29 · San Angelo's reporting rules for coolant sent into the city sewer still apply as written. - 2026-10-02 · San Angelo's reporting rules for data center coolant discharged into the sewer still read as adopted. - 2026-10-05 · San Angelo's rules on reporting coolant a data center sends into the city sewer still stand in the posted ordinance. - 2026-10-08 · San Angelo's rules for reporting data center coolant discharges still read as the council adopted them. - 2026-10-11 · San Angelo's rules on reporting coolant discharged to the sewer still read as adopted. - 2026-10-15 · San Angelo's sewer rules on reporting discharged coolant still read as adopted in the city's file. - 2026-10-18 · San Angelo's ordinance file still sets the reporting rules for coolant sent into the sewer. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · San Angelo's rules for reporting data center coolant sent to the sewer still stand as adopted. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The council adopted Ordinance 2026-076 adding a data center discharges subsection to the sewer rules. > ORDINANCE 2026-076 Source (primary_official): https://www.sanangelo.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2316 ### Sampling and laboratory verification are required before every discharge event, with records kept three years. > (3) Sampling and laboratory verification of treated discharge must be completed prior to each discharge event. Records of discharge volumes, analytical results, and discharge dates must be maintained for at least three years and provided to the Director of Water Utilities upon request. Source (primary_official): https://www.sanangelo.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2316 ### Planned discharges require 72 hours written notice to the Director of Water Utilities. > (4) Planned discharge events require written notification to the Director of Water Utilities at least 72 hours prior to discharge. Source (primary_official): https://www.sanangelo.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2316 ### Emergency discharges must be reported within 4 hours and documented within 7 days. > (5) Emergency discharge events must be reported to the Director of Water Utilities within 4 hours of occurrence, and a written incident report must be submitted within 7 days detailing the discharge volume, analytical results, and corrective actions taken. Source (primary_official): https://www.sanangelo.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2316 ### The ordinance was introduced on May 19th, 2026 and adopted on June 2nd, 2026. > INTRODUCED with public hearing the 19th day of May 2026 and finally ADOPTED this 2nd day of June 2026. Source (primary_official): https://www.sanangelo.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2316 ### The City of San Angelo reports the sewer discharge ordinance passed 5 to 1. > Approved 5-1 at the June 2, 2026 City Council meeting. Source (primary_official): https://www.sanangelo.gov/803/Data-Center-Information --- # Reeves County Emergency Services District No. 2 takes up a Chapter 312 abatement for a gas plant built to run data centers A small emergency services district in Pecos noticed a public hearing to accept a tax abatement application from Energy Forge One LLC under Chapter 312 of the Texas Tax Code. The application concerns a new gas turbine power generation facility inside the Energy Forge One Reinvestment Zone. That zone was established on November 24th, 2025. The notice describes the plant as producing dedicated power for prospective data center end users. It puts the estimated project cost at $6 billion. The hearing was set for 5.30 in the afternoon on March 25th, 2026 at the district's administrative office in Pecos. All interested persons were free to appear and present testimony. The outcome of that hearing has not been confirmed from district minutes. - Topic: power-and-the-grid - Decided by: Reeves County Emergency Services District No. 2 (special-district) - Where: Reeves - Statistical areas: - Town of Pecos, TX - Status: pending - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://rcesd.org/app/uploads/2026/02/RCESD2_Notice-of-Public-Hearing-Energy-Forge-One-2026-03-25.pdf - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2025-11-24 · ordered: Energy Forge One Reinvestment Zone established, per the district's notice - 2026-03-25 · hearing: Public hearing to consider the reinvestment zone and accept the Chapter 312 tax abatement application ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-19 · Checked and unchanged. The notice still sets the hearing for March 25th at 5:30 p.m. at the district office in Pecos and still puts the project cost at 6 billion dollars. - 2026-08-22 · Checked and unchanged. The district's notice still sets the hearing for March 25th, 2026 on the Energy Forge One reinvestment zone and the Chapter 312 abatement application. It still puts the estimated project cost at 6 billion dollars. - 2026-08-25 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-08-26 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-08-29 · Checked and unchanged. The district's notice to take up the abatement application still stands and no action on the application is recorded. The reinvestment zone the plant would sit in is unchanged. - 2026-09-01 · The Reeves County emergency-services district still has the data-center power-plant abatement before it. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-05 · The Reeves County district still has the abatement for the gas plant in front of it. No vote is recorded. - 2026-09-08 · Reeves County Emergency Services District No. 2 still has the abatement for the gas plant in front of it, undecided. - 2026-09-09 · The Reeves County emergency services district has not acted on the gas plant abatement. It is still an application. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-16 · The Reeves County abatement for the gas plant built to serve data centers is still before the emergency services district. No vote has been posted. - 2026-09-19 · The abatement for the gas plant is still before the district and no vote has been taken. - 2026-09-23 · The Reeves County abatement is still before the district and no vote has been taken. - 2026-09-26 · The Reeves County district still has the abatement for the gas plant before it and has taken no vote. - 2026-09-29 · The emergency services district in Reeves County has not voted on the abatement for the gas plant meant to power data centers. - 2026-10-02 · The Reeves County emergency services district has posted no vote on the abatement for the gas plant built to serve data centers. - 2026-10-05 · Reeves County Emergency Services District No. 2 still has the gas plant abatement before it, with no vote posted. - 2026-10-08 · The Reeves County emergency services district has still posted no vote on the gas plant abatement. - 2026-10-11 · The Reeves County emergency services district still shows no vote on the gas plant abatement. - 2026-10-15 · The Reeves County emergency services district still shows no vote on the gas plant abatement. - 2026-10-18 · The Reeves County district's record still shows the gas plant abatement taken up and no vote. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-10-24 · The Reeves County emergency services district's abatement for the data center gas plant still reads as noticed. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The district noticed a public hearing on March 25th, 2026 to consider the reinvestment zone and accept a Chapter 312 tax abatement application from Energy Forge One LLC. > Reeves County Emergency Services District No. 2 (the "District") will conduct a public hearing at a regularly scheduled meeting on March 25, 2026, to consider and to act upon the following items: (1) to consider the application of Energy Forge One LLC, for the recognition of a certain area of Reeves County, Texas, as Energy Forge One Reinvestment Zone (established November 24, 2025) Source (primary_official): https://rcesd.org/app/uploads/2026/02/RCESD2_Notice-of-Public-Hearing-Energy-Forge-One-2026-03-25.pdf ### The project is a gas turbine plant supplying dedicated power to prospective data center end users. > This project would include the construction within the Zone of a new power generation facility that would utilize gas turbines to produce approximately 1-2 GW of dedicated power to prospective data center end users and/or other power intensive end users (collectively referred to as the "Project"). Source (primary_official): https://rcesd.org/app/uploads/2026/02/RCESD2_Notice-of-Public-Hearing-Energy-Forge-One-2026-03-25.pdf ### The district's notice puts the estimated project cost at $6 billion. > The estimated cost of the proposed Project is $6 billion. Source (primary_official): https://rcesd.org/app/uploads/2026/02/RCESD2_Notice-of-Public-Hearing-Energy-Forge-One-2026-03-25.pdf ### The hearing was open to anyone who wished to testify, at a stated time and address. > The public hearing will take place at 5:30 p.m. on March 25, 2026, at the District's Administrative Office, 2269 Ocotillo Drive, Pecos, Texas 79772. All interested persons may appear and present testimony and evidence regarding the Application for Tax Abatement. Source (primary_official): https://rcesd.org/app/uploads/2026/02/RCESD2_Notice-of-Public-Hearing-Energy-Forge-One-2026-03-25.pdf --- # Pecos-Barstow-Toyah ISD's JETI agreement for the Energy Forge One power plant is executed and posted The Texas Comptroller now lists application J0022 among current agreements under the Jobs, Energy, Technology and Innovation Act. It pairs Energy Forge One LLC with Pecos-Barstow-Toyah ISD in Reeves County. The executed agreement was posted on July 24th, 2026. The recommendation packet had gone up on February 11th, 2026. JETI excludes data centers from eligibility. This project entered the program as fossil fuel electric power generation, which is why it also carries no minimum job requirement. The Comptroller's table records a proposed investment of $6.5 billion. Reporting by Grist says the school board approved the application at a February meeting and puts the value of the break at more than $227 million over ten years. - Topic: state-policy - Decided by: Pecos-Barstow-Toyah Independent School District Board of Trustees (school-district) - Where: Reeves - Statistical areas: - Town of Pecos, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://comptroller.texas.gov/economy/development/prop-tax/jeti/application-details.php?id=J0022 - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2025-11-10 · filed: Application posted by the Comptroller - 2026-02-11 · ordered: Comptroller recommendation packet posted - 2026-07-24 · signed: Executed agreement posted by the Comptroller - 2026-07-24 · filed: Agreement document posted to the state's application record ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-19 · The agreement itself is now posted. The state's application record for the Energy Forge One project added an agreement document dated July 24th, and the application has still not been executed. - 2026-08-22 · Checked and unchanged. The state's application record for the Energy Forge One project still carries the agreement document dated July 24th, and the application is still not executed. - 2026-08-26 · Checked and unchanged. The agreement still stands. The comptroller's own current agreements table still carries Energy Forge One under the Pecos-Barstow-Toyah school district, which is the state's own confirmation that it is live. - 2026-08-29 · Checked and unchanged. The school district's agreement for the Energy Forge One plant still stands, and the state rather than the district still carries the cost of the abatement. Nothing on the Comptroller's record alters the agreement. - 2026-09-02 · The agreement is still listed among the comptroller's current agreements and its terms are unchanged. - 2026-09-05 · The school district's tax agreement for the power plant is still executed. The account that reported the request now sits behind a page this run could not read. - 2026-09-08 · The school district's JETI agreement for the Energy Forge One power plant is still executed and still posted where a reader can open it. - 2026-09-09 · The Pecos-Barstow-Toyah ISD agreement for the Energy Forge One plant is still on the comptroller's list of live JETI agreements. - 2026-09-12 · The Pecos-Barstow-Toyah agreement for the Energy Forge One plant is still executed and still on the comptroller's list of live agreements. - 2026-09-13 · The agreement for the Energy Forge One plant is still on the comptroller's list of live agreements under the school district's name. - 2026-09-16 · The school district agreement for the Energy Forge One plant is still executed and still on the state's list of current agreements. Its terms are unchanged. - 2026-09-19 · The executed agreement is still posted as the district signed it. - 2026-09-23 · The executed agreement pairing the power plant with the district is still posted among the comptroller's current agreements. - 2026-09-26 · The executed agreement for the Energy Forge One plant is still posted among the comptroller's current agreements. - 2026-09-29 · The Pecos-Barstow-Toyah JETI agreement for Energy Forge One stands executed. - 2026-10-02 · The comptroller still lists the Energy Forge One agreement with Pecos-Barstow-Toyah ISD. The news story's wording has changed and the entry rests on the comptroller's record. - 2026-10-05 · The comptroller still lists the Pecos-Barstow-Toyah ISD agreement for the Energy Forge One plant among executed JETI agreements. - 2026-10-08 · The comptroller still lists the Energy Forge One agreement with Pecos-Barstow-Toyah ISD as executed, and the Grist account of it reads as before. - 2026-10-11 · The comptroller still lists the Energy Forge One agreement with Pecos-Barstow-Toyah ISD as executed. - 2026-10-15 · The comptroller still lists the Energy Forge One agreement with Pecos-Barstow-Toyah ISD as executed. - 2026-10-18 · The comptroller's application page still shows the Energy Forge One agreement with Pecos-Barstow-Toyah ISD. The Grist account is unconfirmed. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · The executed JETI agreement for the Energy Forge One plant is still posted for Pecos-Barstow-Toyah ISD. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The Comptroller's application details page identifies J0022 as Energy Forge One LLC with Pecos-Barstow-Toyah ISD. > J0022, Pecos-Barstow-Toyah ISD, Energy Forge One LLC Source (primary_official): https://comptroller.texas.gov/economy/development/prop-tax/jeti/application-details.php?id=J0022 ### The minimum job requirement does not apply because the project is an electric generation facility. > These requirements do not apply to an eligible project that is an electric generation facility described by Section 403.602(8)(A)(i)(b). Source (primary_official): https://comptroller.texas.gov/economy/development/prop-tax/jeti/current-agreements.php ### The Comptroller's current agreements table records the proposed investment as $6.5 billion. > $6.5 billion Source (primary_official): https://comptroller.texas.gov/economy/development/prop-tax/jeti/current-agreements.php ### The school board approved the application at a February meeting, according to Grist. > The Pecos-Barstow-Toyah school board approved the project's application at a meeting in February. Source (journalism): https://grist.org/energy/chevron-wants-a-school-district-tax-break-for-a-data-center-power-plant/ ### Grist reports data centers are specifically excluded from JETI eligibility. > data centers are specifically excluded from being eligible for the JETI program Source (journalism): https://grist.org/energy/chevron-wants-a-school-district-tax-break-for-a-data-center-power-plant/ ### Grist puts the value of the break at more than $227 million over ten years. > more than $227 million in savings for the company over a 10-year period Source (journalism): https://grist.org/energy/chevron-wants-a-school-district-tax-break-for-a-data-center-power-plant/ --- # Tom Green County Commissioners Court declines a Precinct 4 moratorium on data centers and large energy projects The Tom Green County Commissioners Court voted not to pursue a temporary moratorium on large scale energy and data center development in Precinct 4. The court acted after hearing a presentation from Beacon Data Centers on its proposed Westline site at Dove Creek, west of San Angelo. Commissioner Shawn Nanny pointed to a $100 million lawsuit filed against Hill County after that county approved a similar one year pause. The result is that the unincorporated part of the county has no local pause. The city of San Angelo has three adopted data center ordinances, and they apply only inside its own limits. That split is the whole local story in Texas, where counties have no general zoning power and cities do. - Topic: data-centers - Decided by: Tom Green County Commissioners Court (county) - Where: Tom Green - Statistical areas: - San Angelo, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://sanangelolive.com/news/county/2026-06-02/tom-green-county-commissioners-reject-data-center-moratorium - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-06-02 · ordered: Commissioners Court declined to advance the Precinct 4 moratorium ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-19 · Checked and unchanged. The court still declines to pursue a temporary moratorium on large scale energy and data center development in Precinct 4. The reasoning given remains the limits of county authority and the risk of litigation. - 2026-08-22 · Checked and unchanged. The court still declines to pursue a temporary moratorium on large scale energy and data center development in Precinct 4. The reasoning given is still the limits of county authority. - 2026-08-25 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-08-28 · Checked and unchanged. Tom Green County still has no moratorium in Precinct 4, so the Westline site at Dove Creek is still subject only to the rules a county already holds. - 2026-09-01 · Tom Green County's decision not to impose the proposed moratorium remains in effect. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-05 · Tom Green County's refusal of a Precinct 4 moratorium still stands. No new moratorium has been proposed. - 2026-09-08 · Tom Green County's refusal of a Precinct 4 moratorium still stands, and no successor proposal has reached the commissioners court. - 2026-09-09 · Tom Green County's refusal of a Precinct 4 moratorium still stands, and no new moratorium has been placed before the court. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-16 · The Tom Green County court still declines to impose the Precinct 4 moratorium. The refusal stands and nothing has been refiled. - 2026-09-19 · The court still has no moratorium in that precinct, and nothing has come back to it. - 2026-09-23 · Tom Green County has not returned to the moratorium it declined. - 2026-09-26 · Tom Green County has not returned to the Precinct 4 moratorium it declined. - 2026-09-29 · Tom Green County has left the declined Precinct 4 moratorium where it was and taken up no substitute. - 2026-10-02 · Tom Green County has not revisited the Precinct 4 moratorium it declined. - 2026-10-05 · Tom Green County's refusal of a Precinct 4 data center moratorium still stands. - 2026-10-08 · Tom Green County's refusal to impose a data center moratorium in Precinct 4 has not been revisited. - 2026-10-11 · Tom Green County has not revisited its refusal of a Precinct 4 data center moratorium. - 2026-10-15 · Tom Green County's refusal of a Precinct 4 moratorium stands, with nothing later on the court's record. - 2026-10-18 · Tom Green County's refusal of a Precinct 4 moratorium still stands on the court's record. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · Tom Green County's refusal of a Precinct 4 moratorium on data centers and large energy projects still stands. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The court voted against a temporary moratorium on large scale energy and data center development in Precinct 4 after a Beacon Data Centers presentation. > SAN ANGELO, Texas — The Tom Green County Commissioners' Court voted Tuesday not to pursue a temporary moratorium on large-scale energy and data center development in Precinct 4 after hearing a presentation from Beacon Data Centers about its proposed Westline Site in Dove Creek. Source (journalism): https://sanangelolive.com/news/county/2026-06-02/tom-green-county-commissioners-reject-data-center-moratorium ### A commissioner cited litigation against Hill County over a similar moratorium. > Commissioner Shawn Nanny referenced a recent $100 million lawsuit filed against Hill County after it approved a similar one-year moratorium. Source (journalism): https://sanangelolive.com/news/county/2026-06-02/tom-green-county-commissioners-reject-data-center-moratorium --- # SpaceX will build the Terafab semiconductor plant in Grimes County on a state grant and two school district agreements Governor Greg Abbott announced on August 6th, 2026 that SpaceX will construct a vertically integrated semiconductor fabrication plant in Grimes County. A Texas Enterprise Fund grant of $30 million has been extended to the company. The project is also qualified under the state's Jobs Energy Technology and Innovation program. The release states a first phase of more than $16.8 billion in capital investment and 3,000 new jobs. The company's own statement in the release says the plant will produce AI chips at scale. Two school districts have agreements of their own. The Iola board voted to enter one and the Anderson-Shiro superintendent describes another. - Topic: state-policy - Decided by: Office of the Texas Governor (governor) - Where: Grimes - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-announces-spacex-expansion-in-grimes-county - Last checked: 2026-10-22 ## Dates - 2026-08-06 · decided: Governor announced the grant and the qualified project ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-19 · Checked and unchanged. The state's announcement of August 6th still gives a capital investment of more than 16.8 billion dollars and 3,000 new jobs. The Texas Enterprise Fund grant is still 30 million dollars. - 2026-08-22 · Checked and unchanged. The state's announcement of August 6th still gives a capital investment of more than 16.8 billion dollars and 3,000 new jobs. The Texas Enterprise Fund grant is still 30 million dollars. - 2026-08-25 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-08-28 · Checked and unchanged. The Terafab plant still stands as announced for Grimes County on the terms the Governor's release gave. Neither the enterprise fund grant nor the school district agreements has been reported altered. - 2026-09-01 · The state grant and school-district agreements supporting SpaceX's Terafab remain approved. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-05 · The Grimes County semiconductor plant still rests on the state grant and the two school district agreements. Nothing about the package has changed. - 2026-09-08 · SpaceX's Terafab plant in Grimes County still rests on the state grant and the two school district agreements named in the record. - 2026-09-09 · The Terafab plant in Grimes County still has its state grant and both school district agreements, on the terms each was signed under. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-16 · The Terafab plant is still committed to Grimes County on the grant and the two school district agreements the record names. No party has moved to unwind any of the three. - 2026-09-19 · The plant is still planned for Grimes County on the grant and the two school district agreements, with no change published to any of the three. - 2026-09-23 · The Grimes County plant still rests on a state grant and two school district agreements. - 2026-09-26 · The Terafab plant in Grimes County still rests on the state grant and the two school district agreements. - 2026-09-29 · The Terafab plant in Grimes County still rests on one state grant and two school district agreements. - 2026-10-02 · The comptroller's JETI listing still carries TeraFab AI's application with Iola ISD, its agreement posted. The Governor's announcement sits on a site that bars automated readers and was not re-read. - 2026-10-05 · The comptroller still lists TeraFab AI's JETI applications in Grimes County. The Governor's announcement of the plant sits on a site that bars automated readers and was not re-read. - 2026-10-08 · The comptroller's JETI program still lists the TeraFab AI application with Iola ISD. The Governor's announcement and the other published accounts sit on sites that bar automated readers and were not re-read. - 2026-10-11 · The comptroller's JETI pages still carry the TeraFab AI application with Iola ISD. The Governor's own announcement of the plant is unconfirmed today. - 2026-10-15 · The comptroller's pages still carry the TeraFab application with Iola ISD. The Governor's announcement is unconfirmed, since the office's site bars automated readers. - 2026-10-18 · The comptroller's JETI page still carries the Grimes County application. The Governor's announcement is unconfirmed, since the office's site bars automated readers. - 2026-10-22 · The comptroller's page for the Grimes County application still carries the SpaceX plant. The Governor's announcement stays unconfirmed, since the office's site bars automated readers. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The Governor announced a vertically integrated semiconductor plant in Grimes County. > Governor Greg Abbott today announced SpaceX will construct a vertically integrated semiconductor fabrication plant in Grimes County. Source (primary_official): https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-announces-spacex-expansion-in-grimes-county ### The release states the first phase investment and the job count. > The first phase of the Terafab project represents a capital investment of more than $16.8 billion and will create 3,000 new jobs. Source (primary_official): https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-announces-spacex-expansion-in-grimes-county ### A Texas Enterprise Fund grant was extended to the company. > A Texas Enterprise Fund (TEF) grant of $30 million has been extended to SpaceX. Source (primary_official): https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-announces-spacex-expansion-in-grimes-county ### The project is qualified under the state's Jobs Energy Technology and Innovation program. > The facility is also a qualified project under the Texas Jobs, Energy, Technology, and Innovation (JETI) program. Source (primary_official): https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-announces-spacex-expansion-in-grimes-county ### The company's founder states the plant is for producing AI chips at scale. > The Terafab is bringing cutting-edge manufacturing to America, creating thousands of high-paying jobs in the Lone Star State, and enabling us to produce AI chips at scale for use on Earth and in space. Source (primary_official): https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-announces-spacex-expansion-in-grimes-county ### The Iola school board voted to enter an agreement under the state program. > The Iola Independent School District Board of Trustees voted to enter into an agreement with TeraFab AI, LLC under the Texas Jobs, Energy, Technology, and Innovation Act, Source (primary_official): https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-announces-spacex-expansion-in-grimes-county ### The release states the facility's floor area and that it consolidates the production chain in one building. > The 100-million-square-foot facility will consolidate the production chain under a single roof to accelerate semiconductor manufacturing to meet the company's future chip needs Source (primary_official): https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-announces-spacex-expansion-in-grimes-county ### The comptroller's JETI program lists the TeraFab AI application with Iola ISD. > J0040, Iola ISD, TeraFab AI, LLC Source (primary_official): https://comptroller.texas.gov/economy/development/prop-tax/jeti/application-details.php?id=J0040 --- # Governor Abbott directs the utility commission and ERCOT to audit every data center in the interconnection queue before any advances Governor Greg Abbott issued a directive on August 3rd, 2026. It tells the Public Utility Commission of Texas and ERCOT to run a verification and audit of every data center moving through the interconnection process. The audit must finish before any data center project moves forward. The directive names five things the agencies must obtain from each project. They are public financial assistance received or expected. They are whether the project brings its own power and whether it brings and reuses its own water. They are what it does to reduce effects on neighbors and who owns and controls it. The letter states the queue at approximately 474 gigawatts and puts the data center share of new power requests at approximately 90 percent. It gives a reason. Some data centers did not answer the commission's own survey of water and power use. - Topic: data-centers - Decided by: Office of the Texas Governor (governor) - Where: Statewide - Status: pending - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/press/Thomas_Gleeson_Pablo_Vegas_Data_Centers_Directive_Letter_to_PUCT_ERCOT_August_2026_.pdf - Last checked: 2026-10-22 ## Dates - 2026-08-03 · ordered: Directive issued - 2026-08-07 · statutory deadline: Batch Zero classification deadline set in the ERCOT Planning Guide passed with no classification notified - 2026-08-20 · hearing: Utility commission open meeting carrying ERCOT's request for a good cause exception, agenda item 22 - 2026-08-20 · ordered: Commission order granting the good cause exceptions, filed in Project No. 59142 - 2026-08-31 · statutory deadline: Date the grid operator asked to conditionally classify large loads by, in place of the August 7th deadline - 2026-12-10 · statutory deadline: Both the eligibility verification report and the community impact review report are to be filed - 2026-12-17 · hearing: Commission open meeting that takes up the two reports ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-16 · The directive letter itself is now the cited source rather than the press release about it. The release reads 'approximately over 474 gigawatts' where the letter reads 'approximately 474 gigawatts'. - 2026-08-19 · The directive has already moved a deadline. ERCOT stated on August 3rd that it would not tell service providers how any large load is classified in the Batch Zero study by the August 7th deadline. It said it would ask the utility commission for a good cause exception ahead of the August 20th open meeting. The Governor's office said on August 18th that the Data Center Coalition will comply. That release also says one data center that could not comply ended operations before construction began. - 2026-08-20 · The exception ERCOT said it would seek is on the commission's agenda today. The published agenda for the August 20th open meeting lists Project 59142, the review of ERCOT's interconnection processes for large loads. The item includes discussion and possible action on an ERCOT request for a good cause exception. The same agenda lists Project 58481, the rulemaking to implement large load interconnection standards. Neither item is on the agenda's list of matters to be taken up without discussion. - 2026-08-23 · The exception was granted. The commission signed an order in Project No. 59142 on August 20th. It lets the grid operator miss the August 7th classification deadline and pause the Batch Zero study of loads at 75 megawatts or more until the audit is done. The grid operator filed the audit's design the same day. It asks community impact information from data centers and crypto facilities of 25 megawatts or more that have not yet energized. That is a lower floor than the pause uses. It reports that 290 dynamic models have been reviewed, with approximately 18 percent acceptable on first review. - 2026-08-25 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-08-26 · Checked and unchanged. The directive letter, the market notice and the commission's own filings still say what they said. The August 20th open meeting has come off the calendar feed now that it has been held, which is normal for that feed and not a change to the directive. - 2026-08-27 · Checked and unchanged. The audit is still running and no data center has been cleared to advance. The August 20th open meeting that granted the exception has been held. The next public step on the calendar is the December 17th open meeting, the one the audit's own filed schedule ends on. - 2026-08-28 · Checked and unchanged. The directive still requires the audit to finish before any data center project moves forward, and neither the commission nor ERCOT has published a result. Every project in the queue is still waiting on it. - 2026-08-29 · Checked and unchanged. The directive still tells the utility commission and the grid operator to audit every data center in the interconnection process before any of them advances. No completed audit has been published, so what the audit found is still unknown. - 2026-08-30 · The directive still has no published result. The instruction to audit the interconnection queue stands, and neither the commission nor the grid operator has posted a finding against it. - 2026-09-01 · The governor's direction to audit queued data centers remains pending before the utility commission and ERCOT. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-05 · The audit directive still stands over every data center in the interconnection queue and no audit result has been published. What the queue looks like after it is still unknown. - 2026-09-08 · The Governor's instruction to audit every data center in the interconnection queue is still an instruction without a published audit behind it. - 2026-09-09 · The Governor's order to audit every data center in the interconnection queue is still outstanding, with no audit published by either body it was addressed to. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-16 · The Governor's direction to audit the interconnection queue is still the standing instruction, and the audit is still the thing every queued project waits behind. No completion has been announced. - 2026-09-19 · The audit the Governor ordered is still the gate every queued data center has to pass, and no project has been reported through it. - 2026-09-23 · The audit the Governor ordered is still the thing standing between a queued data center and its place in line. - 2026-09-26 · The Governor's audit of every data center in the queue is still the step each one must clear before it advances. - 2026-09-29 · Each data center in the interconnection queue still has to clear the Governor's audit before it advances. - 2026-10-02 · The audit of every queued data center is still the step each one must clear, as the commission's and the grid operator's own filings carry it. The Governor's office posts its copy on a site that bars automated readers. - 2026-10-05 · The commission's and the grid operator's own filings still carry the audit every queued data center must clear. The Governor's copy of the directive sits on a site that bars automated readers. - 2026-10-08 · The commission's order and agenda still carry the audit every queued data center must clear, and the commission's calendar still lists its December 17th meeting. The Governor's copy of the directive sits on a site that bars automated readers. - 2026-10-11 · The commission's orders and agenda still lay out the audit every queued data center must clear. Nothing on its calendar marks the audit finished. - 2026-10-15 · The commission's orders still lay out the audit every queued data center must clear. The Governor's directive pages are unconfirmed, since that site bars automated readers. - 2026-10-18 · ERCOT's audit presentation and the commission's agenda still lay out the audit every queued data center faces. The Governor's directive pages are unconfirmed. - 2026-10-22 · ERCOT's audit presentation and its letter to the commission still set out the verification every queued data center faces, with the December dates unchanged. The Governor's directive pages stay unconfirmed. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The Governor directed the commission and ERCOT to audit all data centers in the interconnection process. > Governor Greg Abbott today directed the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) and the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) to conduct a comprehensive verification and audit of all data centers advancing through ERCOT's interconnection process. Source (primary_official): https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-directs-comprehensive-data-center-audit ### The audit must be complete before any project advances, and a failing project is denied connection. > The PUCT and ERCOT must complete this audit before any data center project moves forward. Any project that fails to comply with the requirements set forth by the PUCT and ERCOT will be denied connection to the Texas grid. Source (primary_official): https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-directs-comprehensive-data-center-audit ### The directive letter states the size of the interconnection queue against the record peak. > The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) is currently considering approximately 474 gigawatts of requests to connect to the Texas grid. That is more than five times Texas' record peak electricity demand for ERCOT. Source (primary_official): https://gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/press/Thomas_Gleeson_Pablo_Vegas_Data_Centers_Directive_Letter_to_PUCT_ERCOT_August_2026_.pdf ### The release states the data center share of new power requests. > Approximately 90 percent of the new power requests are data centers. Source (primary_official): https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-directs-comprehensive-data-center-audit ### The directive requires disclosure of public financial assistance received or expected. > Information detailing the extent to which data centers are paying their own way or depending on the state for financial assistance. That would include all state and local tax incentives, grants, abatements, or other public financial assistance received or expected to be received. Source (primary_official): https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-directs-comprehensive-data-center-audit ### The directive requires water and cooling information from each project. > The extent to which data centers are bringing their own water and reusing their own water as opposed to using water needed by local communities. Source (primary_official): https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-directs-comprehensive-data-center-audit ### The commission's calendar lists an open meeting on December 17th. > Open Meeting - Thursday, December 17, 2026 Source (primary_official): https://puc.texas.gov/agency/calendar/GetCalendarRss.aspx ### The letter gives a stated reason for the audit, which is that some data centers did not answer the commission's water and power survey. > The failure of some data centers to comply with the PUC's survey measuring water and power usage under the General Appropriations Act makes this necessary. Source (primary_official): https://gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/press/Thomas_Gleeson_Pablo_Vegas_Data_Centers_Directive_Letter_to_PUCT_ERCOT_August_2026_.pdf ### The commission's published agenda for the August 20th open meeting carries ERCOT's request for a good cause exception. > (Discussion and possible action, including discussion and possible action on ERCOT request for a good cause exception) Source (primary_official): https://ftp.puc.texas.gov/public/puct-info/agency/om/082026Final.pdf ### A separate rulemaking on large load interconnection standards sits on the same agenda. > Rulemaking to Implement Large Load Interconnection Standards Under PURA 37.0561 Source (primary_official): https://ftp.puc.texas.gov/public/puct-info/agency/om/082026Final.pdf ### The commission's open meetings begin with a public comment period on any matter in its jurisdiction. > In the interest of time, speakers will be limited to three minutes each. Source (primary_official): https://ftp.puc.texas.gov/public/puct-info/agency/om/082026Final.pdf ### The commission granted the exceptions ERCOT asked for, and gave its reason. > Good cause exists to allow ERCOT to complete the verification and audit and report the results to the Commission before continuing the Batch Zero interconnection process. Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59142_53_1675960.PDF ### The order records that the grid operator is pausing the study of loads at or above the large load threshold. > In response, ERCOT intends to temporarily pause its transitional Batch Zero interconnection study of loads that are 75 MW or more (Large Loads), including data centers and virtual currency mining facilities, until the verification and audit are complete. Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59142_53_1675960.PDF ### The community impact half of the audit reaches a lower threshold than the pause does. > As part of the same effort, ERCOT will request the community impact information identified in the Governor's letter from all data centers and virtual currency mining facilities of 25 MW or more that have not yet energized. Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59142_53_1675960.PDF ### The order states how long the work is expected to take. > The verification and audit will take several months, so ERCOT was unable to meet an initial classification deadline in its rules for the Batch Zero study process. Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59142_53_1675960.PDF ### The grid operator reported how many technical models it had reviewed and how many passed on the first look. > ERCOT has reviewed 290 dynamic models and approximately 18% were acceptable on first review Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59142_52_1675837.ZIP ### The filing defines the two size bands the audit uses. > Large loads: 75 MW or greater | Medium loads: At least 25 MW and less than 75 MW Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59142_52_1675837.ZIP ### The community impact request goes to projects at or above the medium load floor that have not switched on. > ERCOT will request information from data center and crypto facilities that have requested 25 MW or more and have yet to energize Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59142_52_1675837.ZIP ### The filing gives the size of the medium load population the community impact review will refresh. > April snapshot had 157 medium data center and crypto loads totaling approximately 8,766 MW Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59142_52_1675837.ZIP ### Projects that had cleared every other step are the ones the energization pause holds. > 17 large loads (6,608 MW total peak demand over 5 years) | These large loads have finished all ERCOT processes except have not received ERCOT's approval to energize. Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59142_52_1675837.ZIP ### Both reports are due on the same December date and go to an open meeting a week later. > December 10 | File Batch Zero Eligibility Verification Report | December 17 | Commission Open Meeting Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59142_52_1675837.ZIP ### A load that does not clear verification, or stays silent, is put out of the study. > Large loads that do not pass verification, or do not respond, will be disqualified from Batch Zero Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59142_52_1675837.ZIP ### The grid operator asked to classify loads conditionally by a new date rather than the one it missed. > To excuse ERCOT from the August 7, 2026 classification deadline in Planning Guide § 9.3.1(2)(a) and instead allow ERCOT to conditionally classify large loads by August 31, 2026. Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59142_52_1675837.ZIP --- # Two Texas House committees take up data centers and AI in health care on August 19th and August 20th The House Committee on State Affairs met on August 19th, 2026 on a charge covering data center development in Texas. That charge names SB 6 and the large load batch study process the grid operator proposed. The same notice carries a second charge on the regulatory and planning processes for the proposed 765 kV transmission lines. The House Committee on Public Health meets the following day on a charge covering artificial intelligence in health care. That hearing takes invited testimony only, and the notice states online public comment is open on the artificial intelligence charge. Both sit in the interim, before the 90th Legislature convenes. - Topic: state-policy - Decided by: Texas House of Representatives (legislature) - Where: Statewide - Status: decided - Public access: Public meeting - Comment closes: 2026-08-20 - Take part: https://lrl.texas.gov/whatsNew/client/index.cfm/2026/8/12/Interim-Hearings--Week-of-August-17-2026 - Last checked: 2026-09-29 ## Dates - 2026-08-19 · hearing: House Committee on State Affairs, data centers charge - 2026-08-20 · hearing: House Committee on Public Health, artificial intelligence charge ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-19 · Both hearings still stand. The Legislative Reference Library's posting for the week of August 17th lists the State Affairs data centers charge on August 19th. It lists the Public Health artificial intelligence charge on August 20th. - 2026-08-20 · Both hearings are confirmed against the Legislature's own notices. The State Affairs notice of August 19th carries a second charge. It covers the regulatory and planning processes for the proposed 765 kV transmission lines, which the earlier record did not name. It took invited and public testimony, limited to two minutes a witness, with registration closing at 10:00 am that day. The Public Health notice for August 20th takes invited testimony only. The written comment is the one route a Texan has on the artificial intelligence in health care charge, and it stays open until the hearing is adjourned. - 2026-08-23 · Checked and unchanged. The Legislative Reference Library's posting for that week still lists the State Affairs hearing on August 19th and the Public Health hearing on August 20th. Both dates have now passed. - 2026-08-26 · The comment window closed on August 20th. - 2026-08-29 · The comment window closed on August 20th. Both charges are unchanged, one on data center development and the grid operator's large load study process, and one on artificial intelligence in health care. - 2026-09-01 · The paired House hearings on data centers and artificial intelligence in health care have concluded. - 2026-09-02 · The comment window closed on August 20th. - 2026-09-05 · Both House committees have held their sittings and neither has published a recommendation. What either concluded is still unconfirmed. - 2026-09-08 · Both House committees have now held their sittings on data centers and on AI in health care. Neither has published a report from them. - 2026-09-09 · The comment window closed on August 20th. Both House committees have held their sittings and neither has issued a report. - 2026-09-12 · The comment window closed on August 20th. - 2026-09-13 · The comment window closed on August 20th. - 2026-09-16 · Both House committees have now held the sittings the notices set, on data centers and on artificial intelligence in health care. Neither has published a report out of them. - 2026-09-19 · Both hearings were held and neither committee has published a report out of them. What the posted notice for that week said about the charges is unconfirmed. - 2026-09-23 · Both committees have now heard their subject and neither has published a recommendation. - 2026-09-26 · The comment window closed on August 20th. Both committees have heard their subjects and neither has published a recommendation. - 2026-09-29 · The comment window closed on August 20th. Neither House committee has published what it concluded about data centers or AI in health care. - 2026-10-02 · Whether the two House committees took up data centers and AI in health care as noticed is unconfirmed this run. The notices sit on paths this project does not read. - 2026-10-03 · Whether the two House committees took up data centers and AI in health care as noticed is still unconfirmed. The notices sit on paths this project does not read. - 2026-10-04 · Whether the two House committees took up data centers and AI in health care as noticed is still unconfirmed. The notices sit on paths that bar automated readers. - 2026-10-05 · Whether the two House committees took up data centers and AI in health care as noticed is still unconfirmed. The notices sit on paths that bar automated readers. - 2026-10-06 · Whether the two House committees took up data centers and AI in health care as noticed is still unconfirmed. The notices sit on paths closed to automated readers. - 2026-10-07 · The two House committees' interim hearings are still unconfirmed on the Legislature's own pages, which bar automated readers. - 2026-10-08 · The two House committees' interim hearings remain unconfirmed on the Legislature's own pages, which still bar automated readers. - 2026-10-09 · The two House committee hearings remain unconfirmed on the Legislature's own pages, which still bar automated readers. - 2026-10-10 · The two House committee hearings stay unconfirmed on the Legislature's own pages, which bar automated readers. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The State Affairs committee carries a data center charge in the interim. > Charge: Data Centers: Study the development of data centers in Texas, including its importance to global competitiveness and national security. Source (primary_official): https://lrl.texas.gov/whatsNew/client/index.cfm/2026/8/12/Interim-Hearings--Week-of-August-17-2026 ### The same charge names SB 6 and the grid operator's batch study process for large loads. > Study the implementation of SB 6 and the Large Load Batch Study Process proposed by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, as it relates to data centers, and identify how grid-connected data center facilities and co-located resources can support grid resilience and reliability. Source (primary_official): https://lrl.texas.gov/whatsNew/client/index.cfm/2026/8/12/Interim-Hearings--Week-of-August-17-2026 ### The Public Health committee carries an artificial intelligence charge. > Charge: Artificial Intelligence Use in Health Care: Study the use of artificial intelligence in the health care system to improve access, quality, and efficiency of care, while evaluating potential risks to patient safety, privacy, and access to care for Texans. Source (primary_official): https://lrl.texas.gov/whatsNew/client/index.cfm/2026/8/12/Interim-Hearings--Week-of-August-17-2026 ### The reading list posted with the data center charge includes the Governor's August 3rd directive letter. > (RE: Directing the PUC and ERCOT to take certain actions to shield customers from data infrastructure costs), Governor Greg Abbott, August 3, 2026 Source (primary_official): https://lrl.texas.gov/whatsNew/client/index.cfm/2026/8/12/Interim-Hearings--Week-of-August-17-2026 ### The listing names the two committee meeting dates. > August 19, 2026 House Committee on Delivery of Government Efficiency House Committee on State Affairs August 20, 2026 House Committee on Public Health Source (primary_official): https://lrl.texas.gov/whatsNew/client/index.cfm/2026/8/12/Interim-Hearings--Week-of-August-17-2026 ### The State Affairs notice carries a second charge on the transmission lines, alongside the data centers charge. > Review the regulatory and planning processes regarding the proposed 765-kV transmission lines. Source (primary_official): https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/schedules/html/C4502026081908001.htm ### That hearing limited how long a member of the public could speak. > Public Testimony may be limited to two (2) minutes per witness. Source (primary_official): https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/schedules/html/C4502026081908001.htm ### The Public Health notice states the committee will not take public testimony in the room. > The Committee on Public Health will hear invited testimony only on the following interim charges: Source (primary_official): https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/schedules/pdf/C4102026082009001.PDF ### The same notice states the written channel is open on the artificial intelligence charge. > Online submission of public comments will be available on the following topics: Source (primary_official): https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/schedules/pdf/C4102026082009001.PDF ### The Public Health charge on artificial intelligence names what the committee is studying. > Artificial Intelligence Use in Health Care: Study the use of artificial intelligence in the health care system to improve access, quality, and efficiency of care, while evaluating potential risks to patient safety, privacy, and access to care for Texans. Source (primary_official): https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/schedules/pdf/C4102026082009001.PDF --- # Pflugerville orders a November election on charter amendments, one of them a section on the city's use of artificial intelligence The Pflugerville City Council approved on second reading on August 11th, 2026 an ordinance ordering a special election on November 3rd, 2026 on amendments to the city's home rule charter. The 2026 Charter Review Commission put 21 amendments forward for the city's voters. One of them adds a new Section 2.03 titled Artificial Intelligence Protections. It would require the council to adopt protections covering data, facial recognition and surveillance technology. It would also require transparent approval processes for those technologies and a responsible artificial intelligence framework. A charter section outlives the council that writes it, which an ordinary policy does not. - Topic: surveillance-and-policing - Decided by: Pflugerville City Council (city) - Where: Travis, Williamson - Statistical areas: - Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX - Status: open - Public access: Ballot measure - Comment closes: 2026-11-03 - Take part: https://legistar1.granicus.com/Pflugerville/attachments/1d648f39-3bbb-4159-a4a7-a3c19b80bfcd.pdf - Last checked: 2026-10-22 ## Dates - 2026-08-11 · ordered: Ordinance ordering the election approved on second reading - 2026-11-03 · election: Election day, the last day a voter can answer the question ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-20 · Admitted. The Charter Review Commission's filed report carries the full text of the proposed Section 2.03 and the ordinance setting the election date. - 2026-08-20 · The election ordinance itself is now on the record beside the commission's report. It sets November 3rd, 2026 with polls open from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. The commission put 21 amendments forward. The wording each proposition will carry on the ballot is in an exhibit to the ordinance and is unconfirmed, so what is published here is the section the commission recommends. - 2026-08-23 · Checked and unchanged. The city's own legislative record shows the ordinance ordering the charter election approved on second reading on August 11th, with all members voting in favor. No later action is recorded on it. The election is still set for November 3rd. - 2026-08-26 · The comment window is still open, closing November 3rd. - 2026-08-29 · The comment window is still open, closing November 3rd. The charter amendment adding a section on the city's use of artificial intelligence is still one of those the voters decide, and the council has not withdrawn it. - 2026-09-01 · Pflugerville's charter amendment governing city use of artificial intelligence remains headed to voters. - 2026-09-02 · The comment window is still open, closing November 3rd. - 2026-09-05 · The Pflugerville charter amendment on the city's use of artificial intelligence is still set for the November ballot. The ordering is unchanged. - 2026-09-08 · Pflugerville's November ballot still carries the charter amendment on the city's use of artificial intelligence, and the charter review commission's report is still the document behind it. Nothing has been withdrawn from the ballot order. - 2026-09-09 · The comment window is still open, closing November 3rd, which is the day Pflugerville voters decide the charter section on the city's cameras. - 2026-09-12 · Re-verified on the day's worklist. The recorded ordinance still carries November 3rd, 2026 and the commission's report still carries the proposed section. - 2026-09-13 · Corrected the participation classification. The recorded ordinance sets an election day, not a comment deadline. Earlier history entries calling this a comment window were incorrect. The election date and quoted evidence are unchanged. - 2026-09-13 · Re-verified on the day's worklist. The recorded ordinance still carries November 3rd, 2026 as the election date and the commission's report still carries the proposed section. - 2026-09-16 · The Pflugerville charter amendments are still set for the November ballot, the artificial intelligence section among them. The ballot language has not been altered. - 2026-09-19 · The comment window is still open, closing November 3rd. - 2026-09-23 · Pflugerville's charter question on the city's own use of artificial intelligence is still set for the ballot. - 2026-09-26 · The comment window is still open, closing November 3rd. Pflugerville's charter section on the city's own use of artificial intelligence is still on that ballot. - 2026-09-29 · The comment window is still open, closing November 3rd. Voters in Pflugerville will still find the charter section on the city's own use of artificial intelligence on that ballot. - 2026-10-02 · Pflugerville's November ballot still carries the charter amendments in the city's legislative record. The agenda attachments sit on a host that bars automated readers. - 2026-10-05 · Pflugerville's legislative record still carries the November charter election, the section on the city's use of artificial intelligence among the amendments. - 2026-10-08 · Pflugerville's record still shows the charter election ordinance passing its second reading, with the AI section among the amendments on the November ballot. - 2026-10-11 · Pflugerville's record still carries the charter election ordinance with its AI section. Voters decide on November 3rd. - 2026-10-15 · Pflugerville's charter election with its AI section is still set for the November ballot in the records that answered. The council attachments are unconfirmed. - 2026-10-18 · Pflugerville's legislative history still carries the charter election ordinance. The ordinance text and the review commission's report are unconfirmed. - 2026-10-22 · Pflugerville's legislative history still carries the ordinance calling the charter election, with its section on the city's use of artificial intelligence. The ordinance text and the review commission's report stay unconfirmed. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The proposed charter section states what the council would be required to adopt. > City Council shall adopt protections governing the collection, use, retention, and oversight of data, facial recognition, and surveillance technologies; establish transparent approval processes for such technologies; require a responsible AI (artificial intelligence) framework; ensuring this information is used locally for a legitimate basis established by law. Source (primary_official): https://legistar1.granicus.com/Pflugerville/attachments/1d648f39-3bbb-4159-a4a7-a3c19b80bfcd.pdf ### The commission's summary of amendments names the new section and its subject. > Add a new Section 2.03 to address the City's use of artificial intelligence. Source (primary_official): https://legistar1.granicus.com/Pflugerville/attachments/1d648f39-3bbb-4159-a4a7-a3c19b80bfcd.pdf ### The commission states how many amendments it put forward for the city's voters. > the report identifies 21 amendments that we believe should be submitted to City voters for consideration Source (primary_official): https://legistar1.granicus.com/Pflugerville/attachments/1d648f39-3bbb-4159-a4a7-a3c19b80bfcd.pdf ### The election ordinance sets the date and the polling hours. > on the 3rd day of November 2026, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. to consider amendments to the City of Pflugerville's Home Rule Charter. Source (primary_official): https://legistar1.granicus.com/Pflugerville/attachments/b3422f0d-5bf2-4eb9-8a6f-f6b6c2537696.pdf ### The ordinance ordering the charter election passed its second reading unanimously. > Mayor Weiss read the caption of the ordinance. Mr. Metayer moved to approve the ordinance on second reading. Mr. Coffman seconded the motion. All voted in favor. The motion carried. Source (primary_official): https://webapi.legistar.com/v1/pflugerville/matters/18074/histories --- # PUCT Docket 59029, Oncor application for a second 765 kV line across ten west Texas counties Oncor Electric Delivery has applied to amend its certificate of convenience and necessity to build the Longshore Switch to Drill Hole Switch transmission line. The application covers ten named counties in west Texas. The commission has it set for discussion and possible action at the open meeting on August 21st, 2026. That agenda carries this application and the Dinosaur Switch to Longshore Switch application and nothing else. The two lines meet at Longshore Switch. The commission issued its order on August 28th, 2026, amending the certificate to include the line and approving route 476. The two applications had been consolidated on the question of need and were severed again so each could take its own final order. - Topic: power-and-the-grid - Decided by: Public Utility Commission of Texas (state-agency) - Where: Andrews, Culberson, Ector, Glasscock, Howard, Loving, Martin, Midland, Reeves, Winkler - Statistical areas: - Andrews, TX - Big Spring, TX - Midland, TX - Odessa, TX - Town of Pecos, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://ftp.puc.texas.gov/public/puct-info/agency/om/082126Final.pdf - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-08-21 · hearing: Open meeting, agenda item 2, discussion and possible action - 2026-08-28 · decided: Commission order amending the certificate and approving route 476 ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-20 · Admitted. The commission's published agenda for August 21st, 2026 names this application as item 2, alongside the Dinosaur Switch to Longshore Switch application as item 3. - 2026-08-21 · Checked and unchanged. The commission's published agenda for August 21st, 2026 still names this application as item 2 for discussion and possible action, and the filing index still stands at 489. - 2026-08-26 · The filing index moved from 489 to 498. The case style is unchanged and the application is still pending. Nothing else on the docket has moved. - 2026-08-26 · Checked and moving. The interchange filing list for Docket 59029 answers and its newest filing is dated August 25th, 2026. No final order has been entered. - 2026-08-29 · The commission decided this on August 28th, 2026. It amended the certificate to include the line and approved route 476 across the ten counties the application named. The two western applications were consolidated on the question of need and then severed so each took its own final order. - 2026-09-02 · The commission has severed part of the proceeding and the Attorney General has filed an amicus brief supporting a motion to defer the determination of need. Landowner letters are still arriving on the docket. - 2026-09-05 · The commission's filing index for the second line has taken further filings since the last reading and the amended certificate is unchanged. - 2026-09-08 · The Longshore Switch to Drill Hole Switch application still stands as approved and the case style still names the same west Texas counties. One more filing has been entered since the record last read the index. - 2026-09-09 · The filing index for the second line has also taken further filings. The route the commission approved is unchanged. - 2026-09-12 · The filing index for the second line has also taken further filings. The route the commission approved is unchanged. - 2026-09-13 · The route the commission approved for the second line is unchanged, and the filing index is still taking filings on it. - 2026-09-16 · The second Oncor docket is live and its case style still names the Longshore Switch to Drill Hole Switch line across its ten west Texas counties. No order disposing of it has appeared. - 2026-09-19 · The second line is still approved as the commission ordered it. The docket goes on taking filings, so each count of them belongs to the day it was read. - 2026-09-24 · The second line's approval stands as the commission ordered it. Filings keep arriving in the docket without reopening the order. - 2026-09-27 · The second line's approval still stands as the commission ordered it, and the docket keeps taking filings without reopening the order. - 2026-09-30 · The commission's approval of the second line still stands, and the filing that carries it reads the same. - 2026-10-03 · The commission's approval of Oncor's second line across west Texas still stands, and the docket reads as it did. - 2026-10-06 · The commission's approval of Oncor's second line across west Texas still stands as ordered, and the filing that carries it reads the same. - 2026-10-09 · The commission's approval of Oncor's second west Texas line still reads as ordered on the filing that carries it. - 2026-10-12 · Oncor's second west Texas line still stands as the commission approved it. New filings in the docket are compliance work, not a reopening. - 2026-10-15 · Oncor's second west Texas line still stands as approved. The filings added since are compliance work. - 2026-10-18 · The commission's order approving Oncor's second west Texas line still stands. The filing index pages gave nothing to compare. - 2026-10-21 · The commission's order approving Oncor's second west Texas line still stands. Its filing index has grown from 514 to 531 entries since it was last counted. - 2026-10-24 · Oncor's application for the second 765 kV line across west Texas still stands as decided on the commission's docket. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The docket's official case style names the applicant, the project and every county crossed. > APPLICATION OF ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC TO AMEND ITS CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR THE LONGSHORE SWITCH-DRILL HOLE SWITCH 765 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT IN ANDREWS, CULBERSON, ECTOR, GLASSCOCK, HOWARD, LOVING, MARTIN, MIDLAND, REEVES, AND WINKLER COUNTIES Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=59029&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Descending ### The commission's agenda names the application and the counties it crosses. > Application of Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC to Amend Its Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for the Source (primary_official): https://ftp.puc.texas.gov/public/puct-info/agency/om/082126Final.pdf ### The agenda opens with a public comment period and states the limit on a speaker. > In the interest of time, speakers will be limited to three minutes each. Source (primary_official): https://ftp.puc.texas.gov/public/puct-info/agency/om/082126Final.pdf ### The filing index records the number of filings in this docket. > 489 filing(s). Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=59029&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Descending ### The filing index records the number of filings in this docket. > 498 filing(s). Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=59029&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Descending ### The commission granted the certificate amendment and named the route it approved. > The Commission amends Oncor's CCN number 30043 to include the construction and operation of the proposed transmission facilities, including a 765-kV single-circuit transmission line along route 476 Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59029_503_1678287.PDF ### The order states how far the commission followed the proposal for decision. > The Commission adopts the proposal for decision in part and modifies it in part Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59029_503_1678287.PDF ### The order records what the transmission providers projected the new demand would be. > The TSPs also provided demand projections indicating an exponential increase in non-oil and gas loads in the Permian Basin region, primarily consisting of demand related to cryptocurrency mining operations, data centers, and hydrogen electrolysis facilities. Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59029_503_1678287.PDF ### The filing index records the number of filings in this docket. > 508 filing(s). Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=59029&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Descending ### The commission severed part of the Longshore to Drill Hole proceeding. > ORDER SEVERING PROCEEDINGS Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=59029&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Descending ### The Attorney General filed an amicus brief supporting a motion to defer the determination of need. > Amicus Brief of Ken Paxton in Support of American Stewards of Liberty's Motion to Defer Determination of Need Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=59029&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Descending ### Letters from members of the public are still being filed on the docket. > Joanna Friebele Letter to the PUC Commissioners Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=59029&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Descending ### The filing index records the number of filings in the docket. > 512 filing(s). Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=59029&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Descending ### The filing index for the second 765 kV line stood at 514 filings. > 514 filing(s). Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=59029&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Descending ### The filing index for the second 765 kV line stood at 531 filings. > 531 filing(s). Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=59029&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Descending --- # Senate Transportation held its August 25th hearing on how driverless vehicles are being deployed under SB 2807 The Senate Committee on Transportation posted notice of a public hearing for August 25th, 2026 in the Capitol. One of three interim charges covers the deployment of autonomous vehicle technology authorized by SB 2807 of the 89th Session. It reaches the rules adopted by the Department of Public Safety, the Department of Motor Vehicles and the Department of Licensing and Regulation. The charge directs the committee to quantify the impact on traffic related collisions. The committee will hear invited and public testimony. - Topic: state-policy - Decided by: Texas Senate Committee on Transportation (legislature) - Where: Statewide - Status: pending - Public access: Public meeting - Comment closes: 2026-08-25 - Take part: https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/schedules/pdf/C6402026082509001.PDF - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-08-25 · hearing: Public hearing, 9:00 AM, hearing room E1.016 ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-20 · Admitted. The Legislature's own notice carries the charge, the date, the room and the terms on which a member of the public may be heard. - 2026-08-21 · Checked and unchanged. The Legislature's own upcoming meetings listing still carries the Transportation Committee for 9:00 AM on Tuesday, August 25th, 2026 in hearing room E1.016. The autonomous vehicle charge under SB 2807 still stands, and it still directs the committee to quantify the impact on traffic related collisions. - 2026-08-22 · Checked and unchanged. The Senate notice still sets the hearing for 9:00 AM on August 25th, 2026 in hearing room E1.016. The autonomous vehicle charge still asks the committee to quantify the impact on traffic related collisions. - 2026-08-23 · Checked and unchanged. The Senate's own upcoming meetings listing still sets the Transportation hearing for 9:00 AM on August 25th in hearing room E1.016. It does not mark that hearing canceled where it marks another committee's meeting the same day canceled. - 2026-08-26 · The hearing was held. The committee's own page now carries August 25th, 2026 in its archive of recorded meetings. The Legislature's upcoming listing no longer shows it, which is what that page does once a date passes. What the committee concluded is unconfirmed, because its minutes and witness list are published only under a directory this project does not fetch. - 2026-08-29 · Checked and unchanged. The hearing was held and the committee's own page still carries it in the archive of recorded meetings. What the committee concluded on the driverless charge is still unconfirmed, because its minutes and witness list sit under a directory this project does not fetch. - 2026-09-02 · The August 25th hearing was held and the committee's own page carries its recording. The interim charge on autonomous vehicle deployment under SB 2807 is unchanged, and the committee has published no recommendations yet. - 2026-09-05 · The August 25th hearing has been held and the Legislature's upcoming meetings listing no longer carries it, which is what a past sitting looks like on that page. What the committee concluded on the driverless charge is still unconfirmed. - 2026-09-08 · Senate Transportation's August sitting on driverless vehicle deployment is now in the committee's own video archive, and the committee has published no report from it. The state's list of upcoming Senate meetings no longer carries the hearing, because that list only ever shows what is still to come. - 2026-09-09 · The August 25th transportation hearing has now dropped off the chamber's list of upcoming meetings, which carries only what is still ahead. The hearing notice itself is still posted and the committee has published nothing since it sat. - 2026-09-12 · The August 25th transportation hearing is off the chamber's list of upcoming meetings, which carries only what is still ahead. The committee has published no report and no further sitting. - 2026-09-13 · The transportation committee's interim hearing on driverless deployment now sits in the chamber's video archive rather than on its list of what is ahead. The committee has posted nothing further on the subject. - 2026-09-16 · The transportation committee's hearing on driverless deployment now sits in the committee's own permanent meeting archive, which is where a held hearing goes. The committee has published no report out of it, so the interim charge is still open. - 2026-09-19 · The committee has published no report out of the August hearing on driverless deployment. Its own archive still lists the sitting, and what the posted notice said about the charge is unconfirmed. - 2026-09-24 · The committee has still published no report from its August hearing on driverless deployment. - 2026-09-27 · The committee's own page still lists the August hearing and still links no report from it. - 2026-09-30 · The committee's page still lists the August 25th hearing, and no report from it has been posted. - 2026-10-03 · The committee's page still lists the August hearing on driverless vehicles. No report from it has been posted. - 2026-10-06 · The committee's page still lists the August hearing on driverless vehicles. No report out of that hearing has been posted. - 2026-10-09 · The Senate committee page still lists its August hearing on driverless vehicles. No report from it has been posted. - 2026-10-12 · The committee page still carries the August hearing on driverless vehicles. No interim report has been posted. - 2026-10-15 · The hearing on driverless vehicles still stands on the record that answered. The Senate committee page no longer prints the archive line as quoted, and no interim report has been posted. - 2026-10-18 · The committee's interim charges and the Senate's meeting list still answer. The hearing notice and the library's archive are unconfirmed, and no interim report is posted. - 2026-10-21 · The comment window closed on August 25th. - 2026-10-24 · Senate Transportation's hearing on driverless deployment was held on August 25th, and the committee's record of it still reads as before. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The notice states what the committee will study about driverless vehicles. > Studying the Deployment of Autonomous Vehicle Technology: Study the deployment of autonomous vehicle technology as authorized by SB 2807, (89th Session), including rule-making adopted by the Texas Department of Public Safety, the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles and the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation. Quantify the impact on traffic-related collisions. Source (primary_official): https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/schedules/pdf/C6402026082509001.PDF ### The notice states the committee takes public testimony and what a member of the public must do to file in writing. > Public testimony will be limited to 2 minutes. If submitting written testimony, please provide 15 copies to the committee clerk with your name on each copy. Source (primary_official): https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/schedules/pdf/C6402026082509001.PDF ### The notice names the time and the date. > TIME & DATE: 9:00 AM, Tuesday, August 25, 2026 Source (primary_official): https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/schedules/pdf/C6402026082509001.PDF ### The notice names the room. > PLACE: E1.016 (Hearing Room) Source (primary_official): https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/schedules/pdf/C6402026082509001.PDF ### The Legislature's own upcoming meetings listing carries the committee, the date, the time and the room. > August 25, 2026 9:00 AM Source (primary_official): https://capitol.texas.gov/Committees/MeetingsByCmte.aspx?Leg=89&Chamber=S&CmteCode=C640 ### The Legislative Reference Library's weekly posting carries the charge the committee is meeting on. > Study the deployment of autonomous vehicle technology as authorized by SB 2807 Source (primary_official): https://lrl.texas.gov/whatsNew/client/index.cfm/2026/8/19/Interim-Hearings--Week-of-August-24-2026 ### The same posting carries the rules the charge reaches and what the committee is directed to measure. > including rule-making adopted by the Texas Department of Public Safety, the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles and the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation. Quantify the impact on traffic-related collisions. Source (primary_official): https://lrl.texas.gov/whatsNew/client/index.cfm/2026/8/19/Interim-Hearings--Week-of-August-24-2026 ### The Senate's upcoming meetings listing carries the hearing with its date, time and room. > Committee on Transportation (C640) Source (primary_official): https://capitol.texas.gov/Committees/MeetingsByCmte.aspx?Leg=89&Chamber=S&CmteCode=C640 ### The committee's own page lists the August 25th hearing in its archive of recorded meetings. > Video/Audio — Archives 89th Session Interim August 25, 2026 Source (primary_official): https://senate.texas.gov/cmte.php?c=640 ### The committee's own page carries the autonomous vehicle interim charge in full. > Studying the Deployment of Autonomous Vehicle Technology: Study the deployment of autonomous vehicle technology as authorized by SB 2807, (89th Session), including rule-making adopted by the Texas Department of Public Safety, the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles and the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation. Source (primary_official): https://senate.texas.gov/cmte.php?c=640 ### The committee's own page carries a recording of the August 25th hearing. > August 25, 2026 Source (primary_official): https://senate.texas.gov/cmte.php?c=640 --- # House State Affairs held an interim hearing on data center development and the proposed 765 kV transmission lines The Texas House Committee on State Affairs met on August 19th, 2026 on two interim charges. The first directs it to study the development of data centers in Texas and to review the regulatory framework governing that development. It also directs it to study the implementation of SB 6 and the Large Load Batch Study Process proposed by ERCOT as it relates to data centers. The second directs it to review the regulatory and planning processes regarding the proposed 765 kV transmission lines. Those are the same lines the commission has two Oncor applications for. The committee's product is a report to the next Legislature rather than an order, so nothing binds until the session convenes in January 2027. - Topic: data-centers - Decided by: Texas House Committee on State Affairs (legislature) - Where: Statewide - Status: pending - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://capitol.texas.gov/Committees/MeetingsByCmte.aspx?Leg=89&Chamber=H&CmteCode=C450 - Last checked: 2026-10-23 ## Dates - 2026-08-19 · hearing: Committee meeting at 8:00 AM, as listed on the Legislature's own committee meetings page ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-21 · Admitted. The Legislature's own committee page carries the meeting and the Legislative Reference Library carries both charges in full. So the record has the data center charge and the 765 kV charge on the same August 19th agenda. - 2026-08-25 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-08-28 · Checked and unchanged. House State Affairs has published no interim report from the August 19th hearing. The committee's reading of the data center framework and the 765 kV lines is still only what was said in the room. - 2026-09-01 · The House State Affairs record still shows the data-center and transmission hearing without a later committee action. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-05 · House State Affairs has held its hearing on data centers and the proposed transmission lines. No interim report has been published from it. - 2026-09-08 · House State Affairs has held its hearing on data center development and the proposed 765 kV lines, and the committee has issued nothing since. - 2026-09-09 · The August interim hearing on data center development has dropped off the committee's own meeting list, which carries only what is still ahead. The legislative library's record of the week still carries it and no report has followed. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-16 · The committee has sat twice more this week, on September 14th and September 15th, and its own meeting archive lists both. What it took up at either sitting is not yet on the record here. The committee has still published no report out of the August hearing on data centers and the transmission lines. - 2026-09-19 · The August 19th hearing is still on the committee's own archive and sits below the September 14th and September 15th sittings. The record's reading of that page was written to span the page heading and the first meeting row, so the two newer sittings broke it. The reading now names the August date alone. Nothing about the hearing changed. The committee has still published no report out of it. - 2026-09-23 · The state affairs hearing has been held and nothing has been published out of it. - 2026-09-26 · The State Affairs hearing on data centers and the new transmission lines has been held, and nothing has been published from it. - 2026-09-29 · House State Affairs has published no report from its hearing on data centers and the proposed 765 kV lines. - 2026-10-02 · The House State Affairs hearing on data centers stands as the committee's own pages list it, with no recommendation published. - 2026-10-05 · House State Affairs still lists its hearing on data centers and the 765 kV lines, with no report from it published. - 2026-10-08 · The committee's own archive still lists the August 19th sitting and the two September sittings after it, and no report from the hearing has been published. - 2026-10-14 · The committee's own meeting archive still lists the August 19th sitting, now followed by two September sittings, with its minutes and witness list linked. The charge wording on the Legislative Reference Library page and any report index weren't re-read, since that host is off limits to this project. - 2026-10-17 · The committee's own meeting archive still lists the August 19th sitting and the two September sittings after it, with no later sitting posted. The charge wording on the Legislative Reference Library page is unconfirmed, since that host is off limits to this project. - 2026-10-20 · House State Affairs still lists the August 19th sitting and the two September sittings after it, and has posted no later meeting. The charge wording on the Legislative Reference Library page stays unconfirmed. - 2026-10-23 · House State Affairs still lists the August 19th sitting and the two September sittings after it, with no later meeting and no interim report posted. The charge wording stays unconfirmed. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The committee's own permanent meeting archive still lists the August 19th sitting, below the two sittings it has held since. > August 19, 2026 8:00 AM Source (primary_official): https://capitol.texas.gov/Committees/MeetingsByCmte.aspx?Leg=89&Chamber=H&CmteCode=C450 ### The data center charge states what the committee is directed to study. > Charge: Data Centers: Study the development of data centers in Texas, including its importance to global competitiveness and national security. Source (primary_official): https://lrl.texas.gov/whatsNew/client/index.cfm/2026/8/12/Interim-Hearings--Week-of-August-17-2026 ### The same charge reaches the existing regulatory framework and the large load process ERCOT has proposed. > Review the existing regulatory framework governing data center development and recommend proposals to streamline regulations while enabling communities to plan and manage growth responsibly. Study the implementation of SB 6 and the Large Load Batch Study Process proposed by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, as it relates to data centers, and identify how grid-connected data center facilities and co-located resources can support grid resilience and reliability. Source (primary_official): https://lrl.texas.gov/whatsNew/client/index.cfm/2026/8/12/Interim-Hearings--Week-of-August-17-2026 ### A second charge on the same agenda covers the transmission lines. > Charge: 765-kV Transmission Lines: Review the regulatory and planning processes regarding the proposed 765-kV transmission lines. Source (primary_official): https://lrl.texas.gov/whatsNew/client/index.cfm/2026/8/12/Interim-Hearings--Week-of-August-17-2026 ### The committee's own permanent meeting archive lists a sitting on September 14th, 2026. > September 14, 2026 10:00 AM Source (primary_official): https://capitol.texas.gov/Committees/MeetingsByCmte.aspx?Leg=89&Chamber=H&CmteCode=C450 ### The committee's own permanent meeting archive lists a sitting on September 15th, 2026. > September 15, 2026 10:00 AM Source (primary_official): https://capitol.texas.gov/Committees/MeetingsByCmte.aspx?Leg=89&Chamber=H&CmteCode=C450 --- # House Public Health held an interim hearing on artificial intelligence use in health care The Texas House Committee on Public Health met on August 20th, 2026 on a charge about clinical artificial intelligence. It directs the committee to study the use of artificial intelligence in the health care system to improve access and quality and efficiency of care. The same charge tells the committee to evaluate potential risks to patient safety and privacy and access to care for Texans. A second charge on the same agenda covers what social media platforms and artificial intelligence technologies do to the mental health and the cognitive development of minors. This is the committee that would write any statute governing clinical AI in the next session. Clinical AI is already running in Texas hospitals. - Topic: health-and-education - Decided by: Texas House Committee on Public Health (legislature) - Where: Statewide - Status: pending - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://capitol.texas.gov/Committees/MeetingsByCmte.aspx?Leg=89&Chamber=H&CmteCode=C410 - Last checked: 2026-10-23 ## Dates - 2026-08-20 · hearing: Committee meeting at 9:00 AM, as listed on the Legislature's own committee meetings page ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-21 · Admitted. The Legislature's own committee page carries the August 20th meeting and the charge on artificial intelligence use in health care is on the record in full. - 2026-08-25 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-08-28 · Checked and unchanged. House Public Health has published no interim report from the August 20th hearing on clinical artificial intelligence, so nothing the committee heard has turned into a recommendation yet. - 2026-09-01 · The House Public Health record still shows its artificial-intelligence hearing without a later committee action. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-05 · House Public Health has held its hearing on AI in health care and has published no recommendation from it. - 2026-09-08 · House Public Health has held its hearing on artificial intelligence in health care, and no committee product has followed it. - 2026-09-09 · House Public Health has held its interim hearing on artificial intelligence in health care and has published nothing since. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-16 · House Public Health has held its interim hearing on artificial intelligence in health care and has published nothing since. The charge is still open. - 2026-09-19 · No report has followed the hearing on artificial intelligence in health care. What the posted notice for that week said about the charge is unconfirmed. - 2026-09-23 · The health hearing has been held and no recommendation has followed. - 2026-09-26 · The Public Health hearing on artificial intelligence in health care has been held, and no recommendation has followed. - 2026-09-29 · House Public Health has not followed its hearing on artificial intelligence in health care with a written recommendation. - 2026-10-02 · The House Public Health hearing on artificial intelligence stands as the committee's own pages list it, with no recommendation published. - 2026-10-05 · House Public Health still lists its hearing on artificial intelligence in health care, with no report from it published. - 2026-10-08 · The Legislature's committee page still lists the hearing on AI in health care, and no report from it has been published. - 2026-10-14 · The committee's own meeting archive still lists the August 20th sitting first in its list, under the same clerk and room. The charge wording on the Legislative Reference Library page and any report index weren't re-read, since that host is off limits to this project. - 2026-10-17 · The committee's own meeting archive still lists the August 20th sitting on AI in health care, with no later sitting posted. The charge wording on the Legislative Reference Library page is unconfirmed, since that host is off limits to this project. - 2026-10-20 · House Public Health still lists the August 20th sitting on AI in health care as its latest, with nothing later posted. The charge wording stays unconfirmed. - 2026-10-23 · House Public Health's latest posted sitting is still the August 20th hearing on AI in health care. No interim report has appeared, and the charge wording stays unconfirmed. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The Legislature's own committee page lists the committee, the meeting date and the time. > House Committee on Public Health (C410) Clerk: Scott Crownover Phone: (512) 463-0806 Room: EXT E2.172 Date and Time Hearing Notice Minutes Witness List Handouts Comments August 20, 2026 9:00 AM Source (primary_official): https://capitol.texas.gov/Committees/MeetingsByCmte.aspx?Leg=89&Chamber=H&CmteCode=C410 ### The charge states what the committee is directed to study about clinical AI. > Charge: Artificial Intelligence Use in Health Care: Study the use of artificial intelligence in the health care system to improve access, quality, and efficiency of care, while evaluating potential risks to patient safety, privacy, and access to care for Texans. Source (primary_official): https://lrl.texas.gov/whatsNew/client/index.cfm/2026/8/12/Interim-Hearings--Week-of-August-17-2026 ### A second charge on the same agenda reaches minors. > Charge: Social Media’s Impact on Youth Health and Well-Being: Study the impact of social media platforms and artificial intelligence technologies on the mental health, cognitive development, and behavioral well-being of minors in Texas. Source (primary_official): https://lrl.texas.gov/whatsNew/client/index.cfm/2026/8/12/Interim-Hearings--Week-of-August-17-2026 --- # NSF awarded Prairie View A and M a grant to let AI split up the grid optimization problem across processor cores The National Science Foundation made an award to Prairie View A and M University on August 11th, 2026 under its HBCU Excellence in Research program. The project builds a framework that uses graph based artificial intelligence and reinforcement learning to decide how to break up electric grid optimization problems. It then assigns the pieces to processor cores as the work runs. The award record states the obligation as FY 2026 = $699,999.00 and runs the project from October 1st, 2026 through September 30th, 2029. The math it targets is the math that decides which generators run in a grid the size of the one carrying the state's new load. - Topic: research-and-science - Decided by: U.S. National Science Foundation (federal) - Where: Waller - Statistical areas: - Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2602962.json?printFields=abstractText - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-08-11 · ordered: Award date recorded in the National Science Foundation award record ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-21 · Admitted. The award record names Prairie View A and M, states the obligation and dates the award to August 11th, 2026. - 2026-08-25 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-08-28 · Checked and unchanged. The Prairie View A and M award still stands on the agency's own record, with the same obligation and the same project period. No amendment has been posted. - 2026-09-01 · Prairie View A and M's grid-optimization research award remains active in the federal record. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-05 · The Prairie View award for splitting the grid optimization problem across cores still stands as made. The work is unchanged. - 2026-09-08 · The Prairie View A and M award for splitting the grid optimization problem across processor cores still stands as made. - 2026-09-09 · The Prairie View A and M award for splitting the grid optimization problem across machines is still in force on its original terms. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-16 · The Prairie View A and M award still stands as made, for splitting the grid optimization problem across processor cores. No modification has been posted. - 2026-09-19 · The grant to the Prairie View campus stands as awarded. - 2026-09-23 · The Prairie View award still stands, and the work is still about splitting the optimization rather than solving it. - 2026-09-26 · The Prairie View award still stands, and the method still splits the grid problem across processor cores rather than solving it whole. - 2026-09-29 · Prairie View's award still funds a method that divides the grid optimization problem among processor cores. - 2026-10-02 · Prairie View's award still pays for splitting the grid optimization problem across processor cores. - 2026-10-05 · The NSF award to Prairie View A and M for AI that splits up grid optimization still stands. - 2026-10-08 · Prairie View A and M's NSF award for AI that divides up grid optimization is still active. - 2026-10-11 · Prairie View A and M's NSF award for splitting grid optimization across processor cores is still active. - 2026-10-15 · Prairie View A and M's grid optimization award still reads as active on the foundation's page. - 2026-10-18 · The foundation still lists Prairie View A and M's award for splitting grid optimization across cores as active. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · The NSF award to Prairie View A and M for splitting grid optimization across processor cores is still active. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The award record names the awardee. > "awardeeName":"Prairie View A & M University" Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2602962.json?printFields=abstractText ### The abstract states what the project is for. > This project aims to create faster, more reliable, and more adaptable methods to make optimal operational decisions in managing the electric power grid and maintain its reliability, affordability, and resilience. Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2602962.json?printFields=abstractText ### The abstract states where the approaches will be run. > The approaches will be evaluated by using diverse electric-grid test systems on multicore workstations and high-performance computing platforms. Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2602962.json?printFields=abstractText ### The award record states the obligation. > "fundsObligated":["FY 2026 = $699,999.00"] Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2602962.json?printFields=abstractText --- # NSF awarded UT Austin a grant to replace hand written robot safety rules with a model trained on demonstrated safe behavior The National Science Foundation made an award to the University of Texas at Austin on August 13th, 2026 under its Foundational Research in Robotics program. The project trains a model on expert demonstrations and uses it as a filter that pulls a robot's action back toward behavior that was demonstrated as safe. The award record states the obligation as FY 2026 = $360,000.00 and runs the project from October 1st, 2026 through September 30th, 2029. Its own abstract is the argument for it, because it says engineers today must define every dangerous situation by hand. - Topic: research-and-science - Decided by: U.S. National Science Foundation (federal) - Where: Travis - Statistical areas: - Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2535276.json?printFields=abstractText - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-08-13 · ordered: Award date recorded in the National Science Foundation award record ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-21 · Admitted. The award record names the University of Texas at Austin, states the obligation and dates the award to August 13th, 2026. - 2026-08-25 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-08-28 · Checked and unchanged. The UT Austin robotics safety award still stands on the agency's own record with its stated obligation and project period unaltered. - 2026-09-01 · UT Austin's award for learning robot-safety constraints from demonstrations remains in the federal record. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-05 · The Austin award on learning robot safety rules from demonstrated behavior still stands. Nothing about the grant has moved. - 2026-09-08 · The UT Austin award for learning robot safety from demonstrated behavior rather than hand written rules is still active as awarded. - 2026-09-09 · The UT Austin award to replace hand written robot safety rules with a learned model is still active, and the award record shows no change. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-16 · The UT Austin award for learning robot safety from demonstrated behavior rather than hand written rules is still active as granted. Nothing has changed its terms. - 2026-09-19 · The award stands, and the work it funds is still to replace written robot safety rules with a model trained on behavior somebody demonstrated. - 2026-09-23 · The Austin award still stands, and the method still learns the safety rule instead of being handed one. - 2026-09-26 · The Austin robot safety award still stands, and the method still learns the safe behavior from demonstration. - 2026-09-29 · The Austin award still funds robot safety learned from demonstration in place of hand written rules. - 2026-10-02 · The Austin award still funds robot safety learned from demonstrations rather than written out by hand. - 2026-10-05 · The NSF award to UT Austin for robot safety rules learned from demonstrations still stands. - 2026-10-08 · UT Austin's NSF award to teach robots safety rules from demonstrations is still active. - 2026-10-11 · UT Austin's NSF award to learn robot safety rules from demonstrations is still active. - 2026-10-15 · UT Austin's award to learn robot safety rules from demonstrations still reads as active. - 2026-10-18 · UT Austin's award to learn robot safety rules from demonstrated behavior is still listed as active. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · The NSF award to UT Austin for learning robot safety rules from demonstrated safe behavior is still active. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The award record names the awardee. > "awardeeName":"University of Texas at Austin" Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2535276.json?printFields=abstractText ### The abstract states how robot safety is specified today. > For a robot to work safely alongside people, engineers today must manually define every dangerous situation the robot might encounter and write rules to avoid each one. Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2535276.json?printFields=abstractText ### The abstract states what is wrong with the existing methods. > Existing safety methods in robotics require explicit mathematical descriptions of which states are safe, but these descriptions are difficult to specify, computationally expensive to enforce, and brittle in novel situations. Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2535276.json?printFields=abstractText ### The award record states the obligation. > "fundsObligated":["FY 2026 = $360,000.00"] Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2535276.json?printFields=abstractText --- # UTMB moved its Epic health record into Microsoft's cloud and named advanced technologies as the reason The University of Texas Medical Branch migrated its electronic health record from servers it runs itself onto Microsoft's Azure platform, and announced the move on August 13th, 2026. The institution states the cutover took nineteen minutes and that the migration was first announced as part of a five year agreement with Microsoft in May 2025. Its own account names a stronger foundation for advanced technologies that support patient care, research, education and operations. Where a public hospital's patient records physically sit is the decision that has to be made before any clinical AI tool reaches a bedside. - Topic: health-and-education - Decided by: The University of Texas Medical Branch (state-agency) - Where: Galveston - Statistical areas: - Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://www.utmb.edu/news/article/utmb-news/2026/08/13/utmb-moves-health-data-to-cloud-based-system--enhancing-digitally-connected-care-initiatives - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-08-13 · ordered: Date the institution published its account of the completed migration ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-21 · Admitted. The institution's own account states that Epic moved to Azure and names what the move is designed to support. - 2026-08-25 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-08-28 · Checked and unchanged. UTMB's Epic record is still running on Azure and the institution has published nothing walking back its own account of the cutover. - 2026-09-01 · UTMB's completed Epic cloud migration remains documented as a foundation for advanced technology. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-05 · The Galveston medical branch's health record is still in the commercial cloud and the institution still names advanced technologies as the reason. - 2026-09-08 · UTMB's Epic record is still hosted in Microsoft's cloud, and the reason the institution gave for the move is unchanged. - 2026-09-09 · UTMB's health record is still running in Microsoft's cloud, and advanced technologies is still the reason the university gave for moving it. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-16 · UTMB's health record is still in the Microsoft cloud and the university still gives advanced technologies as the reason for the move. The stated rationale has not been revised. - 2026-09-19 · The health record is still in the cloud the system moved it to, and the reason the university gave for moving it has not been restated. - 2026-09-23 · The Galveston health record is still in the cloud the university moved it to. - 2026-09-26 · UTMB's health record is still in Microsoft's cloud, and the stated reason is still advanced technologies. - 2026-09-29 · UTMB's Epic record still runs in Microsoft's cloud, and the university's stated reason is still advanced technologies. - 2026-10-02 · UTMB's Epic record still lives in Microsoft's cloud, for the reason the university gave. - 2026-10-05 · UTMB's Epic record still runs in Microsoft's cloud, and the university still names advanced technologies as the reason. - 2026-10-08 · UTMB's Epic record still runs in Microsoft's cloud, and the university's stated reason has not changed. - 2026-10-11 · UTMB's Epic record still runs in Microsoft's cloud for the reason the university gave. - 2026-10-15 · UTMB's account of moving its Epic record into Microsoft's cloud reads as published. - 2026-10-18 · UTMB's own account of moving Epic into Microsoft's cloud still names advanced technologies as the reason. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · UTMB's health record still runs in Microsoft's cloud, and the hospital still gives advanced technologies as the reason. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The institution states what moved and where it moved to. > The University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) has migrated its electronic health record (EHR) system Epic from an on-premises environment to Microsoft’s cloud-based Azure platform. Source (primary_official): https://www.utmb.edu/news/article/utmb-news/2026/08/13/utmb-moves-health-data-to-cloud-based-system--enhancing-digitally-connected-care-initiatives ### The institution names what the move is designed to support. > The move is designed to enhance security, improve disaster recovery, increase system scalability, accelerate innovation, and provide a stronger foundation for advanced technologies that support patient care, research, education, and operations across UTMB. Source (primary_official): https://www.utmb.edu/news/article/utmb-news/2026/08/13/utmb-moves-health-data-to-cloud-based-system--enhancing-digitally-connected-care-initiatives ### The institution states the length of the cutover and the agreement it sits under. > The initiative, first announced as part of a five-year agreement between UTMB and Microsoft in May 2025, was completed with a brief cutover window of just 19 minutes, according to Jayson Laban , vice president of Information Services and chief information officer. Source (primary_official): https://www.utmb.edu/news/article/utmb-news/2026/08/13/utmb-moves-health-data-to-cloud-based-system--enhancing-digitally-connected-care-initiatives --- # Amazon selects Austin for a factory building the robotics systems used in its warehouses, and the mayor says no incentives were requested Amazon announced a new manufacturing facility in Austin that will produce the robotics systems used in its fulfillment operations. The Office of the Governor announced the same siting and put it at 300 to 500 new jobs in manufacturing and engineering. Austin Mayor Kirk Watson is quoted in Amazon's own release saying the company asked for no economic incentives and no public money. That sets this apart from most large technology sitings the record carries. - Topic: state-policy - Decided by: Office of the Texas Governor (governor) - Where: Travis - Statistical areas: - Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://press.aboutamazon.com/2026/8/amazon-announces-new-manufacturing-facility-in-austin-texas - Last checked: 2026-10-22 ## Dates - 2026-08-19 · ordered: Amazon and the Office of the Governor each announced the Austin siting ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-22 · Amazon's release and the Office of the Governor's announcement both name the Austin siting. The mayor is quoted in Amazon's release saying no incentives were requested. - 2026-08-27 · Checked and unchanged. Both announcements still stand as issued and neither has been amended. The mayor's statement that the company asked for no economic incentives and no public money is still carried inside the company's own release. No local body has posted an item on the site. - 2026-08-30 · The siting still stands and the account given of it has not changed. No public proceeding has been noticed against the factory. - 2026-09-01 · Amazon's selection of Austin for its warehouse-robotics factory remains announced without a city incentive request. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-05 · Amazon's Austin robotics factory still stands as sited and the mayor's statement that no incentives were requested is unchanged. - 2026-09-08 · Amazon's Austin robotics factory is still going ahead on the terms announced, and the mayor's statement that no incentives were requested still stands. - 2026-09-09 · Amazon's Austin robotics factory is still sited where the company said, and no public proceeding has opened on it since. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-16 · Amazon's Austin robotics factory is still the announced plan, and the mayor's account that no incentives were requested still stands unchallenged on the record. - 2026-09-19 · The robotics factory is still sited in Austin, and the statement that no incentives were requested has not been contradicted. - 2026-09-23 · The Austin robotics factory still stands as announced, and the city still says no incentives were asked for. - 2026-09-26 · Amazon's Austin robotics factory still stands as announced, and the mayor's statement that no incentives were requested still stands too. - 2026-09-29 · Amazon's robotics factory in Austin stands as announced, and the mayor's word that no incentives were requested has not changed. - 2026-10-02 · Amazon's Austin robotics factory still stands on the company's and the city's records. The Governor's office posts its copy on a site that bars automated readers. - 2026-10-05 · Amazon's own announcement of the Austin robotics factory still stands. The Governor's release sits on a site that bars automated readers and was not re-read. - 2026-10-08 · Amazon's own announcement of the Austin robotics factory still reads as published, and the mayor's statement that no public money was asked for stands. The Governor's release sits on a site that bars automated readers. - 2026-10-11 · Amazon's announcement of the Austin robotics factory still reads as published. The mayor's statement on public money stands. - 2026-10-15 · Amazon's announcement of the Austin robotics factory reads as published. The Governor's release is unconfirmed. - 2026-10-18 · Amazon's own announcement of the Austin robotics factory reads as published. The Governor's release is unconfirmed. - 2026-10-22 · Amazon's own announcement of the Austin robotics factory still reads as published. The Governor's release stays unconfirmed. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The plant will build the robotics systems used in Amazon's fulfillment operations. > robotics systems that work alongside Amazon's employees to handle repetitive tasks and heavy lifting. Source (primary_corporate): https://press.aboutamazon.com/2026/8/amazon-announces-new-manufacturing-facility-in-austin-texas ### The mayor states the company asked for no public money. > no economic incentives, no public money,” said Mayor Kirk Watson. Source (primary_corporate): https://press.aboutamazon.com/2026/8/amazon-announces-new-manufacturing-facility-in-austin-texas ### The state announced the siting. > Governor Greg Abbott today announced Amazon has selected Austin as the site of a new robotics manufacturing facility. Source (primary_official): https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-announces-amazon-expansion-in-austin ### The state gives the job range for the facility. > 300–500 new jobs in manufacturing and engineering. Source (primary_official): https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-announces-amazon-expansion-in-austin --- # National Science Foundation awards Rice University a cooperative agreement for a self driving laboratory that designs its own semiconductor experiments The National Science Foundation obligated a cooperative agreement to William Marsh Rice University for a test bed called READINESS. The award runs from August 1st, 2026 to July 31st, 2030 and its estimated total is carried in the award record quoted below. The agency's own abstract describes the platform as a self driving laboratory that designs, tests and improves material synthesis processes with minimal human intervention. The performance site is Houston and the principal investigator of record is Jun Lou. - Topic: research-and-science - Decided by: National Science Foundation (federal) - Where: Harris - Statistical areas: - Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=2607553 - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-07-21 · ordered: Award date on the National Science Foundation record - 2026-08-01 · effective: Award start date ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-22 · The National Science Foundation award record carries the estimated total and the award dates. Its abstract describes a self driving laboratory and names Houston as the performance site. - 2026-08-27 · Checked and unchanged. The award still stands and the laboratory is still described as one that designs and runs its own experiments. - 2026-08-30 · The cooperative agreement is unchanged. The self driving laboratory it pays for is still described the same way. - 2026-09-01 · Rice's cooperative agreement for an autonomous semiconductor laboratory remains in the federal award record. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-05 · The Rice cooperative agreement for the self driving semiconductor laboratory still stands as awarded. - 2026-09-08 · The Rice cooperative agreement for a self driving semiconductor laboratory is still in force as awarded. - 2026-09-09 · The Rice self driving laboratory agreement is still in force as awarded. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-16 · The Rice cooperative agreement for the self driving semiconductor laboratory is still in force as awarded. No amendment has been published. - 2026-09-19 · The cooperative agreement stands, and the laboratory it funds is still to design its own semiconductor experiments. - 2026-09-23 · The Rice cooperative agreement still stands and the laboratory still designs its own semiconductors. - 2026-09-26 · The Rice cooperative agreement still stands, and the laboratory still plans its own semiconductor experiments. - 2026-09-29 · Rice's cooperative agreement still funds a laboratory that designs its own semiconductor experiments. - 2026-10-02 · Rice's cooperative agreement still funds a laboratory that plans and runs its own semiconductor experiments. - 2026-10-05 · Rice's cooperative agreement with NSF for a self driving laboratory still stands. - 2026-10-08 · Rice's cooperative agreement with NSF for its self driving laboratory is still in force. - 2026-10-11 · Rice's cooperative agreement with NSF for the self driving laboratory remains in force. - 2026-10-15 · Rice's cooperative agreement for the self driving laboratory remains in force. - 2026-10-18 · Rice's cooperative agreement for a self driving semiconductor laboratory still reads as awarded. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · The NSF cooperative agreement for Rice's self driving semiconductor laboratory is still in force. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The agency describes the funded platform as a self driving laboratory operating with minimal human intervention. > The platform will function as a “self-driving laboratory” capable of autonomously designing, testing, and improving material-synthesis processes with minimal human intervention. Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards.json?id=2607553&printFields=id,title,awardeeName,startDate,expDate,estimatedTotalAmt,pdPIName,abstractText,date,transType,perfCity,perfStateCode ### The award's title names autonomous experimentation for semiconductor synthesis. > PCL-Test Bed: Revolutionizing AI-Driven Autonomous Experimentation for Next-Generation Semiconductor Synthesis (READINESS) Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards.json?id=2607553&printFields=id,title,awardeeName,startDate,expDate,estimatedTotalAmt,pdPIName,abstractText,date,transType,perfCity,perfStateCode ### The award record gives the recipient and the estimated total amount. > William Marsh Rice University Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards.json?id=2607553&printFields=id,title,awardeeName,startDate,expDate,estimatedTotalAmt,pdPIName,abstractText,date,transType,perfCity,perfStateCode ### The award record gives the estimated total amount. > "estimatedTotalAmt":"19928016" Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards.json?id=2607553&printFields=id,title,awardeeName,startDate,expDate,estimatedTotalAmt,pdPIName,abstractText,date,transType,perfCity,perfStateCode --- # National Science Foundation awards Texas A and M a national user facility where robots and artificial intelligence design and test new metal alloys The National Science Foundation obligated a cooperative agreement to the Texas A and M Engineering Experiment Station for the Autonomous Robotic Metallurgist Materials Innovation Platform. The university calls it a six year, 24.9 million dollar grant. It runs from September 1st, 2026 to August 31st, 2032. The agency describes it as an open access national user facility that designs and makes and tests new alloys and learns from them. It does that by integrating robotics and artificial intelligence and physics based simulation and automated experimentation. The performance site of record is College Station and the principal investigator of record is Raymundo Arroyave. - Topic: research-and-science - Decided by: National Science Foundation (federal) - Where: Brazos - Statistical areas: - College Station-Bryan, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=2534344 - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-07-31 · ordered: Award date on the National Science Foundation record - 2026-09-01 · effective: Award start date ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-22 · The National Science Foundation award record and the university's announcement both name the platform. The award record carries the start and end dates and the estimated total. - 2026-08-27 · Checked and unchanged. The award still stands and the platform is still described as open to researchers outside the university that hosts it. - 2026-08-28 · Checked and unchanged. The Texas A and M user facility award still stands with its stated term and start date. The agency still describes it as open access rather than reserved to the university. - 2026-08-29 · Checked and unchanged. The award to the Texas A and M Engineering Experiment Station still funds the autonomous metallurgist platform, and the agency still calls it open access. The dates the grant runs between are unaltered. - 2026-08-30 · The user facility award is unchanged. Robots and artificial intelligence still run the instruments that outside researchers book time on. - 2026-09-01 · Texas A and M's national autonomous metals user facility remains funded in the federal award record. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-05 · The national user facility for robot designed alloys at College Station still stands as awarded and is still open to outside researchers. - 2026-09-08 · The Texas A and M national user facility for robot designed alloys still stands as awarded, and its user access terms are unchanged. - 2026-09-09 · The Texas A and M user facility where robots run the experiments is still funded as a national facility, open to researchers from outside the system. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-16 · The Texas A&M national user facility for robot and model designed alloys is still funded as a user facility. Its terms have not moved. - 2026-09-19 · The user facility is still funded, and it is still open to researchers who do not work at the campus. - 2026-09-23 · The national user facility at the Texas A and M campus still stands as awarded. - 2026-09-26 · The Texas A and M alloy facility still stands as a national user facility on the award's terms. - 2026-09-29 · The Texas A&M alloy facility where robots and AI design and test metals keeps its standing as a national user facility. - 2026-10-02 · The Texas A&M alloy facility is still a national user facility where robots and AI design and test metals. - 2026-10-05 · The NSF national user facility at Texas A&M where robots and AI run experiments still stands as awarded. - 2026-10-08 · The NSF user facility at Texas A&M where robots and AI run the experiments is still funded as awarded. - 2026-10-11 · The NSF user facility at Texas A&M where robots and AI run experiments remains funded. - 2026-10-15 · The user facility at Texas A&M where robots and AI design experiments remains funded. - 2026-10-18 · The user facility at Texas A&M where robots and AI design alloy experiments is still funded. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · The NSF user facility at Texas A and M where robots and AI design and test alloys is still funded. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The agency describes the platform as an open access national user facility that closes the discovery loop with robotics and artificial intelligence. > The Autonomous Robotic Metallurgist Materials Innovation Platform (ARM-MIP) at Texas A&M University is an open-access national user facility that designs, makes, tests, and learns from new alloys, closing the discovery loop by integrating robotics, artificial intelligence, physics-based simulation, and automated e Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards.json?id=2534344&printFields=id,title,awardeeName,startDate,expDate,estimatedTotalAmt,pdPIName,abstractText,date,transType,perfCity,perfStateCode ### The award's title names the autonomous robotic metallurgist platform. > Research Infrastructure: MIP: Autonomous Robotic Metallurgist: An NSF Materials Innovation Platform (ARM-MIP) Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards.json?id=2534344&printFields=id,title,awardeeName,startDate,expDate,estimatedTotalAmt,pdPIName,abstractText,date,transType,perfCity,perfStateCode ### The award record gives the recipient. > Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards.json?id=2534344&printFields=id,title,awardeeName,startDate,expDate,estimatedTotalAmt,pdPIName,abstractText,date,transType,perfCity,perfStateCode ### The award record gives the estimated total amount. > "estimatedTotalAmt":"24900000" Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards.json?id=2534344&printFields=id,title,awardeeName,startDate,expDate,estimatedTotalAmt,pdPIName,abstractText,date,transType,perfCity,perfStateCode ### The university states the size and length of the grant and what it will establish. > A six-year, $24.9 million grant from the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) will establish the Autonomous Robotic Metallurgist Materials Innovation Platform (ARM-MIP) at Texas A&M University Source (primary_official): https://news.engineering.tamu.edu/news/2026/08/03/texas-am-to-build-first-national-self-driving-laboratory-for-metals-open-to-researchers-nationwide/ --- # Denton City Council takes up a data center moratorium resolution and a schedule of the public hearings it would require An agenda item asked the Denton City Council to approve a resolution on a moratorium. It covers the acceptance and processing and approval of applications for data center development inside the city limits. The same item asked the council to approve a schedule for the notice and public hearings the moratorium would require. The city's legislative record shows no final action and the meeting minutes for August 18th, 2026 are not finalized. Denton runs its own municipal electric utility, so a moratorium here is a city deciding whether to keep taking applications for loads it would have to serve itself. - Topic: data-centers - Decided by: Denton City Council (city) - Where: Denton - Statistical areas: - Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX - Status: pending - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://denton-tx.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=8169473&GUID=01691CB0-D683-4CB1-BBE2-9D9452063A32 - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-08-18 · hearing: Data center moratorium resolution placed on the City Council agenda ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-22 · The agenda item asks the council to approve the moratorium resolution. The city's legislative record shows no final action and the August 18th minutes are not finalized. - 2026-08-27 · Checked and unchanged. The resolution is still on the council's legislative record with its final action field blank, so nothing has been adopted and nothing has been rejected. - 2026-08-30 · The Denton resolution is still waiting. No new date has been set for it and the schedule of public hearings attached to it has not moved. - 2026-09-01 · Denton's data-center moratorium resolution and hearing schedule remain before the city council. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-05 · Denton still has the moratorium resolution and its schedule of required public hearings in front of it. No hearing has been held. - 2026-09-08 · Denton still has the data center moratorium resolution and its hearing schedule in front of the council, undecided. - 2026-09-09 · Denton has not returned to the data center moratorium resolution, and the schedule of public hearings that came with it is unchanged. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-16 · The Denton moratorium resolution and the hearing schedule attached to it are still before the council. No hearing has been held. - 2026-09-19 · The moratorium resolution and the hearing schedule are still before the council with no vote taken. - 2026-09-23 · Denton's moratorium resolution is still on the council's table with its hearing schedule attached. - 2026-09-26 · Denton's moratorium resolution and the hearing schedule it would require are still before the council. - 2026-09-29 · Denton's council still has the moratorium resolution and its schedule of required hearings before it. - 2026-10-02 · Denton's moratorium resolution and its hearing schedule are still before the council with no final action posted. - 2026-10-05 · Denton's council still has the data center moratorium resolution and its hearing schedule before it, with no final vote posted. - 2026-10-08 · Denton's council has posted no final vote on the data center moratorium resolution. - 2026-10-11 · Denton has still posted no final vote on the data center moratorium resolution. - 2026-10-15 · Denton has posted no final vote on the data center moratorium resolution. - 2026-10-18 · Denton's moratorium resolution and its hearing schedule still read as taken up, with no final vote posted. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-10-24 · Denton's moratorium resolution and its schedule of public hearings still read as the council took them up. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The agenda item asks the council to approve a data center moratorium resolution and a hearing schedule. > Consider approval of a resolution of the City of Denton regarding a moratorium on the acceptance, processing, and approval of applications for the development of data centers within the corporate limits of the City of Denton and approving a schedule for required notice and public hearings for such moratorium; providing for severability; and providing an effective date. Source (primary_official): https://denton-tx.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=8169473&GUID=01691CB0-D683-4CB1-BBE2-9D9452063A32 ### The city has not published an outcome for the meeting. > Please note: this meeting's minutes have not been finalized yet. Actions taken on legislation and their results are not available. Source (primary_official): https://denton-tx.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1356104&GUID=2C80918D-F58E-4522-A845-6B78CAC3DB44 --- # Brazos County Commissioners Court assigns the RELLIS data center tax abatement to ThisWay Global after the original developer's bankruptcy Brazos County posted a Tax Code Section 312.207 notice that its Commissioners Court would consider assigning the tax abatement agreement for the RELLIS Campus data and research center. The agreement was originally approved on April 29th, 2025 with RELLIS Campus Data and Research Center, LLC. The pending assignee named in the notice is ThisWay, Global, Inc. The county's own notice puts the estimated cost of improvements and tangible personal property at a minimum of approximately 700 million dollars. The land sits in a reinvestment zone on the RELLIS campus. That campus belongs to The Texas A and M University System, so the abatement agreement is what decides whether the county collects anything from the build. - Topic: data-centers - Decided by: Commissioners Court of Brazos County (county) - Where: Brazos - Statistical areas: - College Station-Bryan, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://www.brazoscountytx.gov/m/newsflash/Home/Detail/388 - Last checked: 2026-09-19 ## Dates - 2025-04-29 · filed: Original tax abatement agreement approved with RELLIS Campus Data and Research Center, LLC - 2026-08-18 · hearing: Regular meeting of the Commissioners Court at 10:00 a.m. at which the assignment was considered ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-22 · The county's posted Section 312.207 notice names the pending assignee and the estimated minimum cost. A local report says the Commissioners Court approved the transfer. - 2026-08-27 · Checked and unchanged. The county's own notice still carries the estimated cost of the improvements and still names the company taking over the abatement agreement. - 2026-08-30 · The assignment stands. The abatement first approved for the RELLIS campus data center now sits with the new holder, against improvements the county's own notice puts at approximately $700,000,000. - 2026-09-02 · The assignment of the abatement stands and the county has recorded no further amendment. - 2026-09-05 · The Brazos County abatement is still assigned to its new owner and the assignment is unchanged. - 2026-09-08 · The Brazos County notice of the assignment of the RELLIS abatement to ThisWay Global is still posted and still reads as it did. What the commissioners court did at the meeting the notice named is still not published as a minute. - 2026-09-09 · The RELLIS data center abatement is still assigned to the new owner on the terms Brazos County approved. - 2026-09-12 · The RELLIS data center abatement is still assigned to the new owner on the terms Brazos County approved. The county's own notice of that assignment has rolled off its news page. The assignment now rests on the court record rather than on a page a reader can open. - 2026-09-13 · The RELLIS abatement is still assigned to the new owner, and the county's own notice still names the assignee. - 2026-09-16 · The RELLIS abatement is still assigned to its new holder and the county's posting still reads as it did. Nothing has been brought back to the court. - 2026-09-19 · The assignment of the abatement stands as the court made it. - 2026-09-24 · The assignment of the RELLIS abatement is unconfirmed this run. The county's own notice of it could not be read again. - 2026-09-26 · The assignment of the RELLIS abatement is unconfirmed this run. The county's own notice of it could not be read again. - 2026-09-28 · The county's own notice could not be read again, so the named assignee and the estimated cost it states rest on the last reading rather than a fresh one. Nothing on the record says the assignment the court approved has been undone. - 2026-09-29 · The county's own notice of the RELLIS assignment would not load again, so the assignee and the cost it names still rest on an earlier reading. Nothing on the record shows the court undoing the assignment. - 2026-09-30 · The assignment of the RELLIS abatement is still unconfirmed. The county's notice and the only published account both sit behind a barrier to automated readers, and nothing on the record shows the court undoing it. - 2026-10-01 · The assignment of the RELLIS abatement is still unconfirmed. The county's notice and the only published account both sit behind barriers to automated readers, and nothing on the record shows the court undoing it. - 2026-10-02 · The assignment of the RELLIS abatement is still unconfirmed. The county's notice and the only published account both sit behind barriers to automated readers. - 2026-10-03 · The RELLIS assignment is still unconfirmed. The county's notice and the only published account remain behind barriers to automated readers. - 2026-10-04 · The RELLIS assignment is still unconfirmed. The county's notice and the only published account both stay behind barriers to automated readers. - 2026-10-05 · The RELLIS assignment is still unconfirmed. The county's notice and the only published account both sit behind barriers to automated readers. - 2026-10-06 · The RELLIS abatement assignment is still unconfirmed. Brazos County's notice and the one published account of it both bar automated readers. - 2026-10-07 · The RELLIS abatement assignment is still unconfirmed. Brazos County's notice and the one published account of it both bar automated readers. - 2026-10-08 · The RELLIS abatement assignment is still unconfirmed. The county's notice and the one published account of it both still bar automated readers. - 2026-10-09 · The RELLIS abatement assignment is still unconfirmed. The county's notice refused the request again today. - 2026-10-10 · The RELLIS abatement assignment stays unconfirmed. The county's notice refused the request again. - 2026-10-24 · The assignment of the RELLIS abatement to ThisWay Global is unconfirmed today, since the county's notice refused the request and the station's site bars automated readers. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The county noticed that its Commissioners Court would consider assigning the RELLIS data center tax abatement agreement at a meeting on August 18th, 2026. > The Commissioners Court of Brazos County will consider the approval of an amendment concerning an assignment of a tax abatement agreement entered into with RELLIS Campus Data and Research Center, LLC, originally approved on April 29, 2025, (the “Tax Abatement Agreement”), at a Regular Meeting of the Commissioners Court scheduled at 10:00 a.m. on August 18th, 2026, in the Commissioners Courtroom of the Brazos County Administration Building, 200 S. Texas Avenue, Suite 106, Bryan, Texas 77803. Source (primary_official): https://www.brazoscountytx.gov/m/newsflash/Home/Detail/388 ### The county states the estimated cost of the project. > Estimated cost of improvements and tangible personal property is at minimum approximately $700,000,000 which will include real property improvements, new tangible personal property, machinery, and equipment. Source (primary_official): https://www.brazoscountytx.gov/m/newsflash/Home/Detail/388 ### The county names the pending assignee of the agreement. > The name of the pending assignee of RELLIS Campus Data and Research Center, LLC’s rights, responsibilities, obligations, liabilities, and interest in the Tax Abatement Agreement is ThisWay, Global, Inc. Source (primary_official): https://www.brazoscountytx.gov/m/newsflash/Home/Detail/388 ### The court approved the assignment. > On Tuesday, Brazos County commissioners approved transferring the tax abatement agreement tied to the $700 million data center project to a new company, ThisWay Global, Inc. The vote passed 4-0, with one commissioner absent. Source (journalism): https://www.kbtx.com/2026/08/18/brazos-county-commissioners-approve-new-owner-rellis-data-center-heres-what-it-means-your-wallet/ --- # The House committee on government efficiency is charged with studying whether the state should use artificial intelligence to find fraud in its own spending The Speaker's interim charges give a charge to the House Committee on Delivery of Government Efficiency. It is to study how the state can use technology to detect fraud and waste and abuse of taxpayer resources. The charge names artificial intelligence among that technology. A second charge asks whether the Texas Data Privacy and Security Act gives Texas residents and businesses adequate protection. The same document puts the Department of Information Resources and the Sunset Advisory Commission and the Texas Space Commission under the committee's oversight. A charge is an instruction to look at something and report, and it is the stage before a bill exists. - Topic: state-policy - Decided by: Texas House Committee on Delivery of Government Efficiency (legislature) - Where: Statewide - Status: pending - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://house.texas.gov/committees/committee/233 - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-08-19 · hearing: Committee met on its interim charges ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-22 · The committee's posted hearing notice carries both interim charges verbatim. The same notice names the committee's oversight of the Department of Information Resources and of HB 150. - 2026-08-27 · Checked and unchanged. Both charges still stand as written and the committee still holds oversight of the state's information resources agency. The hearing on the charges was held on August 19th and no report has been published against them yet. - 2026-08-30 · The interim charge stands as written. The committee is still charged with studying whether the state should turn artificial intelligence on fraud, waste and abuse, and no hearing has been noticed against it. - 2026-09-01 · The House government-efficiency study of artificial intelligence for fraud detection remains an unresolved interim charge. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-05 · The efficiency committee still carries the charge to study AI for finding fraud in state spending. It has published nothing on it. - 2026-09-08 · The House committee on government efficiency still carries the charge to study AI for finding fraud in state spending, with nothing published against it. - 2026-09-09 · The government efficiency committee still carries the charge to study whether the state should buy artificial intelligence differently, and has reported nothing. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-16 · The government efficiency committee still holds the charge to study artificial intelligence against fraud in state spending. It has published no findings. - 2026-09-19 · The committee still holds the charge and has published nothing out of it, so whether the state will look for its own fraud this way is undecided. - 2026-09-23 · The efficiency charge still asks whether the state should use the technology to find fraud, and the committee has not answered. - 2026-09-26 · The House efficiency committee's charge on using artificial intelligence to find fraud in state spending is still open, with no report. - 2026-09-29 · The House efficiency committee has issued no report on its charge to study AI for finding fraud in state spending. - 2026-10-02 · The House efficiency committee has published nothing yet on using AI to find fraud in state spending. - 2026-10-05 · The House government efficiency committee still carries its charge to study state use of AI, with no report published. - 2026-10-08 · The House committee studying state use of AI has still published no report. - 2026-10-11 · The House committee charged with studying state use of AI has published no report yet. - 2026-10-15 · The House committee charged with studying state use of AI has published no report. - 2026-10-18 · The House committee's charge to study AI for finding fraud in state spending still reads as issued. No report is posted. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-10-24 · The House government efficiency committee's charge to study AI for spotting fraud in state spending still stands as issued. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The charge directs the committee to study using technology, artificial intelligence among it, against fraud in state spending. > Preventing Fraud, Waste, and Abuse: Study methods by which the state can leverage technology, including artificial intelligence, to detect fraud, waste, and abuse of taxpayer resources. Source (primary_official): https://www.house.texas.gov/pdfs/speaker/F-Interim-Charges-3.25.pdf ### A second charge asks whether the state's data privacy law protects Texans well enough. > Data Privacy and Security: Study the implementation and effectiveness of the Texas Data Privacy and Security Act to determine whether the law provides adequate protection for Texas residents and businesses. Source (primary_official): https://www.house.texas.gov/pdfs/speaker/F-Interim-Charges-3.25.pdf ### The document names the agencies the committee oversees. > The jurisdiction of the Delivery of Government Efficiency Committee includes the following agencies: Source (primary_official): https://www.house.texas.gov/pdfs/speaker/F-Interim-Charges-3.25.pdf --- # National Science Foundation funds an open access robot run alloy laboratory at Texas A&M that outside researchers may book The National Science Foundation made a cooperative agreement to the Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station in College Station. It funds the Autonomous Robotic Metallurgist Materials Innovation Platform. The award record describes a national user facility that designs and makes and tests new alloys in one autonomous laboratory. It joins robotics and artificial intelligence with simulation and automated experimentation. The record states that scientists and engineers from universities and national laboratories and industry come to it as hands on users and run their own campaigns. Remote access modes are named as a way to reach researchers at institutions outside the top research tier. The agreement runs from September 1st, 2026 to August 31st, 2032. - Topic: research-and-science - Decided by: United States National Science Foundation (federal) - Where: Brazos - Statistical areas: - College Station-Bryan, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Closed - Take part: https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2534344.json - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-07-31 · decided: Award date on the National Science Foundation award record - 2026-09-01 · effective: Start date of the cooperative agreement ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-23 · Admitted. The award record and the agency's own announcement are both on the record, and the facility's start date has not yet arrived. - 2026-08-25 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-08-26 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-08-27 · Checked and unchanged. The award still stands and the laboratory is still described by the agency as equipment researchers anywhere in the country should be able to get their hands on. - 2026-08-28 · Checked and unchanged. The cooperative agreement for the autonomous alloy laboratory still stands, and the facility still begins on September 1st. The open access promise the award record makes has not been narrowed. - 2026-08-29 · Checked and unchanged. The cooperative agreement for the autonomous alloy laboratory still stands, and the award record still describes a national user facility rather than a laboratory one campus keeps to itself. The robotics and the artificial intelligence are still joined to simulation in the same building. - 2026-08-30 · The award still stands. The alloy laboratory remains open access, and outside researchers can still put work on it. - 2026-09-01 · The federal award for Texas A and M's open-access autonomous metals laboratory remains in force. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-05 · The open access robot run alloy laboratory at College Station still stands as funded and outside researchers may still book it. - 2026-09-08 · The open access robot run alloy laboratory at Texas A&M is still funded and still says outside researchers may book time on it. - 2026-09-09 · The robot run alloy laboratory at Texas A and M is still funded as an open access facility. That is the part of it that matters to anyone outside the university. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-16 · The Texas A&M alloy laboratory is still funded as an open access facility outside researchers may book. The booking route is still published. - 2026-09-19 · The alloy laboratory is still funded as an open access facility, so a researcher outside the campus can still book time on it. - 2026-09-23 · The alloy laboratory is still open to outside researchers on the terms the award set. - 2026-09-26 · The robot run alloy laboratory is still open for outside researchers to book on the award's terms. - 2026-09-29 · Outside researchers can still book time in the robot run alloy laboratory at Texas A&M on the award's terms. - 2026-10-02 · Outside researchers can still book the robot run alloy laboratory at Texas A&M under the award. - 2026-10-05 · The NSF award for the robot run alloy laboratory at Texas A&M that outside researchers can book still stands. - 2026-10-08 · Texas A&M's robot run alloy laboratory, open to outside researchers, still stands on its NSF award. - 2026-10-11 · Texas A&M's robot run alloy laboratory remains funded and open to outside researchers. - 2026-10-15 · Texas A&M's robot run alloy laboratory is still funded and still open to outside researchers. - 2026-10-18 · The robot run alloy laboratory at Texas A&M is still funded and still open for outside researchers to book. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · The NSF funded alloy laboratory at Texas A&M is still listed as open for outside researchers to book. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The award record describes the facility as an open access national user facility built around an autonomous laboratory. > The Autonomous Robotic Metallurgist Materials Innovation Platform (ARM-MIP) at Texas A&M University is an open-access national user facility that designs, makes, tests, and learns from new alloys, closing the discovery loop by integrating robotics, artificial intelligence, physics-based simulation, and automated experimentation into a single autonomous laboratory. Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2534344.json ### The record states who may use the facility and what they do there. > scientists and engineers from universities, national laboratories, and industry come to ARM-MIP as hands-on users, running their own discovery campaigns and carrying autonomous-laboratory techniques back to their home institutions Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2534344.json ### The record divides the work between the machine and the people. > Automation handles sample fabrication, characterization, and routine computation, while researchers focus on hypothesis generation, interpretation, and the metallurgical decisions that drive discovery. Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2534344.json ### The record names remote access as a way to reach researchers outside the top research tier. > Remote access modes, including artificial-intelligence-guided campaign design and digital-twin-supported experiment planning, extend advanced discovery capabilities to additional researchers, including those at non-R1 and EPSCoR institutions. Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2534344.json ### The award record carries the money obligated so far and the estimated total. > "fundsObligatedAmt":"4100000" Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2534344.json ### The award record names the recipient, the instrument and the term. > "id":"2534344","initAmendmentDate":"07/31/2026" Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2534344.json ### The agency framed the two platforms it funded as equipment researchers anywhere in the country should be able to use. > NSF wants researchers with great ideas, wherever they are in the U.S., to get their hands on this equipment and work together to pursue those ideas. Source (primary_official): https://www.nsf.gov/news/nsf-stands-2-materials-innovation-platforms-50m-investment ### The award record carries the recipient, the instrument and the estimated total. > "awardeeName":"Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station" Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2534344.json ### The award record carries the estimated total and the instrument. > "estimatedTotalAmt":"24900000" Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2534344.json ### The award record states the instrument and the term. > "transType":"Cooperative Agreement" Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2534344.json --- # National Science Foundation funds UT San Antonio and Texas A&M to adapt large language models on machines that can't afford to run them The National Science Foundation made two matched standard grants on August 14th, 2026. They fund a subspace optimization framework for resource efficient and private fine tuning of large language models. One went to the University of Texas at San Antonio and one to Texas A&M University, each obligating the same amount. The award record states the problem as reaching the performance of full parameter fine tuning where computing resources are limited and training data are sensitive or off limits to share. It names small organizations, universities and healthcare institutions among those the current requirements shut out. Both awards run from January 1st, 2027 to December 31st, 2029. - Topic: research-and-science - Decided by: United States National Science Foundation (federal) - Where: Bexar - Statistical areas: - San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Closed - Take part: https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2619079.json - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-08-14 · decided: Award date on both National Science Foundation award records - 2027-01-01 · effective: Start date of both awards ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-23 · Admitted. Both award records were read directly and carry the same title, the same obligated amount and the same term. - 2026-08-26 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-08-29 · Checked and unchanged. Both matched grants still stand, one at the University of Texas at San Antonio and one at Texas A and M. The stated problem is still reaching the accuracy of full parameter fine tuning on machines that can't carry it. - 2026-09-01 · The joint Texas A and M and UT San Antonio language-model efficiency award remains in the federal record. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-05 · The San Antonio and College Station award on adapting large models for machines that can't afford to run them still stands as made. - 2026-09-08 · The UT San Antonio and Texas A&M award for adapting large language models on constrained machines still stands as made. - 2026-09-09 · The UT San Antonio and Texas A and M work adapting large language models is still funded as awarded. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-16 · The award to UT San Antonio and Texas A&M for adapting large language models on constrained machines is still in force as made. No change has been posted. - 2026-09-19 · The award stands, and the problem it is aimed at is still adapting large models on machines too small to run them comfortably. - 2026-09-23 · The award still stands, and the problem it names is still running a large model on hardware that can't afford one. - 2026-09-26 · The San Antonio and College Station award still stands, still aimed at running large language models on modest hardware. - 2026-09-29 · The award to UTSA and Texas A&M still aims at running large language models on hardware too small to host them whole. - 2026-10-02 · UTSA and Texas A&M are still funded to fit large language models onto hardware too small to hold them whole. - 2026-10-05 · The NSF award to UT San Antonio and Texas A&M for adapting large language models still stands. - 2026-10-08 · The NSF award for UT San Antonio and Texas A&M to adapt large language models is still active. - 2026-10-11 · The NSF award for adapting large language models at UT San Antonio and Texas A&M remains active. - 2026-10-15 · The award to UT San Antonio and Texas A&M for adapting large language models on smaller machines is still active. - 2026-10-18 · The award to UT San Antonio and Texas A&M for adapting language models on smaller machines is still listed. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · The NSF award to UT San Antonio and Texas A&M for adapting language models on modest machines is still active. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The award record names who is shut out by what a large model currently costs to adapt. > These requirements can limit the ability of small organizations, universities, healthcare institutions, and other resource-constrained users to benefit from recent advances in AI. Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2619079.json ### The award record states the scientific problem in terms of limited compute and unshareable data. > The scientific problem addressed by this project is how to achieve performance comparable to full-parameter fine-tuning when computing resources are limited and training data are sensitive or cannot be shared. Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2619079.json ### The award record names reduced energy cost among the stated benefits. > The research contributes to societal benefits by broadening access to advanced AI tools, strengthening the protection of sensitive information, and reducing the financial and energy costs of model adaptation. Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2619079.json ### The San Antonio award record carries the recipient, the amount and the term. > "id":"2619079","initAmendmentDate":"08/14/2026" Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2619079.json ### The matched award to the second Texas institution carries the same title and the same amount. > "id":"2619080","initAmendmentDate":"08/14/2026" Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2619080.json ### The San Antonio award record names the recipient. > "awardeeName":"University of Texas at San Antonio" Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2619079.json ### Each award record carries the same obligated amount. > "fundsObligatedAmt":"120000" Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2619079.json ### The matched award record names the second recipient. > "awardeeName":"Texas A&M University" Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2619080.json --- # National Science Foundation funds Rice to let AI propose numerical algorithms only where a proof checker certifies them The National Science Foundation made a standard grant to William Marsh Rice University in Houston on August 17th, 2026. The award record describes reinforcement learning and large language models proposing randomized numerical linear algebra algorithms. The Lean proof assistant is required to certify correctness and cost before a candidate counts. The record states that the machine methods can explore designs efficiently but may produce opaque or inconsistent results without dependable guarantees. It also describes separating real algorithmic improvement from variation caused by the model itself. The award runs from September 15th, 2026 to August 31st, 2029. - Topic: research-and-science - Decided by: United States National Science Foundation (federal) - Where: Harris - Statistical areas: - Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Closed - Take part: https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2616828.json - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-08-17 · decided: Award date on the National Science Foundation award record - 2026-09-15 · effective: Start date of the award ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-23 · Admitted. The award record was read directly from the agency's own award endpoint. - 2026-08-26 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-08-29 · Checked and unchanged. The grant to Rice still requires a proof assistant to certify an algorithm's correctness and its cost before a machine proposed candidate counts for anything. The award record is otherwise unaltered. - 2026-09-01 · Rice's proof-checked numerical-algorithm research award remains active in the federal record. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-05 · The Rice award still limits the algorithms AI may propose to the ones a proof checker certifies. The condition is unchanged. - 2026-09-08 · The Rice award still ties AI proposed numerical algorithms to a proof checker, and that condition is still how the work is described. - 2026-09-09 · The Rice award letting AI propose numerical algorithms only where a proof can follow is unchanged, and the proof condition is still part of it. - 2026-09-10 · The award to Rice is still on the foundation's own record. It still names the same principal investigator and still carries the same purpose, which is letting a model propose numerical algorithms. Nothing about the award has been amended. - 2026-09-11 · The award record still stands as the foundation published it. The condition it sets is unchanged, which is that a machine proposed algorithm counts only once the proof assistant has certified its correctness and its cost. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-14 · The award record still reads as it did. The requirement that a proof assistant certify a proposed algorithm before it counts is still part of what was funded rather than a step offered afterwards. - 2026-09-15 · The award stands as made and the start date the award record gives has now arrived. The requirement that a proof assistant certify an algorithm before it counts is still written into the record's own account of the work. - 2026-09-18 · The award record reads as it did. A proof assistant still has to certify a proposed algorithm for correctness and cost before it counts, which is the condition that makes this grant unusual. The funding term the foundation published is unamended. - 2026-09-21 · The award record still describes the same arrangement. A model proposes the numerical algorithm and a proof decides whether it survives, and the grant stands as the foundation posted it. - 2026-09-24 · The award still pairs a model that proposes numerical algorithms with a proof checker that decides which of them stand. The foundation's record of it has not moved. - 2026-09-27 · The foundation's award to Rice still stands as made, for work that lets a model propose algorithms only where a proof checker certifies them. - 2026-09-30 · The foundation's award to Rice still stands, for work where a model proposes numerical algorithms and a proof checker decides which ones are kept. - 2026-10-03 · The foundation's award to Rice still reads as published. AI still proposes the numerical methods only where the award says it may. - 2026-10-06 · The foundation's award to Rice for AI that proposes numerical algorithms still stands as announced. - 2026-10-09 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-12 · The foundation's award to Rice for AI that proposes algorithms only a proof checker can certify still stands. - 2026-10-15 · Rice's award for AI that proposes algorithms only a proof checker certifies still reads as active. - 2026-10-18 · Rice's award for AI that proposes algorithms only where a proof checker certifies them is still listed. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · The NSF award to Rice for AI proposed algorithms that a proof checker must certify is still active. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The award record states the weakness of machine proposed algorithms it is written against. > AI methods, including reinforcement learning (RL) and large language models (LLMs), can explore algorithm designs efficiently, but they may produce opaque or inconsistent results without dependable guarantees. Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2616828.json ### The award record makes a proof checker the condition on which a machine written algorithm counts. > Lean will certify deterministic correctness and cost claims, thereby converting AI-generated candidates into reusable mathematical objects rather than opaque algorithmic programs. Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2616828.json ### The award record treats the model's own variability as a thing to be measured. > Because LLM-generated algorithms and proofs vary across prompts, the LAAM will also develop sequentially valid inference to separate genuine algorithmic improvements from model-induced randomness. Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2616828.json ### The award record carries the recipient, the amount and the term. > "id":"2616828","initAmendmentDate":"08/17/2026" Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2616828.json ### The award record names the recipient. > "awardeeName":"William Marsh Rice University" Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2616828.json ### The award record carries the obligated amount. > "fundsObligatedAmt":"150000" Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2616828.json --- # A generative AI platform at UTMB reached the UT System Regents only on its third amendment, at $9,850,000, and now covers all seven health institutions The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston contracted in December 2024 for a platform giving it a secure way to work with generative artificial intelligence models. The agenda book for the August 12th and 13th, 2026 meeting of the University of Texas System Board of Regents carries the third amendment. It is item 65 on the consent agenda. It states the first agreement was set at $825,000 and did not require Board approval. A first amendment raised the value to $4,250,000 and still sat inside the same delegated authority. The third amendment adds $5,600,000 and brings the total to $9,850,000. It extends the platform to all seven University of Texas System health related institutions and is funded under an initiative appropriated by the 89th Texas Legislature. The agenda book also states the agreement was competitively procured. No minutes for the meeting are published, so what the Board did with the item is not yet on the public record. - Topic: health-and-education - Decided by: The University of Texas System Board of Regents (state-agency) - Where: Galveston - Statistical areas: - Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX - Status: pending - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://www.utsystem.edu/board-of-regents/meetings/board-meeting-2026-08-12 - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2024-12-01 · filed: Month the original master subscription agreement was entered, as stated in the agenda book - 2025-10-31 · effective: Start of the third amendment term stated in the agenda book - 2026-08-12 · hearing: Meeting of the Board of Regents whose consent agenda carries the item as number 65 ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-23 · Admitted. The Regents' own agenda book carries the contract's three values and states that the first two sat inside the institution's delegated authority and needed no Board approval. - 2026-08-26 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-08-29 · Checked and unchanged. The third amendment to the generative AI platform contract still sits on the regents' consent agenda record. The platform still reaches all seven health institutions rather than the one campus that signed first. Nothing later alters it. - 2026-09-01 · UTMB's expanded generative-artificial-intelligence platform remains before the regents without a later recorded disposition. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-05 · The generative AI platform still covers all seven health institutions at its amended value. No fourth amendment has reached the regents. - 2026-09-08 · The UTMB generative AI platform still runs across all seven health institutions on the amended contract the regents approved. - 2026-09-09 · The UTMB generative AI platform still reached the regents only at its third amendment, and no fourth has been filed. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-16 · The UTMB generative AI platform is still running under the third amendment, and it still reaches all seven health institutions. No fourth amendment has come to the regents. - 2026-09-19 · The generative platform's amendment stands as the regents approved it, reaching all seven health institutions. - 2026-09-23 · The platform's third amendment still covers all seven health institutions. - 2026-09-26 · The UTMB platform's third amendment still stands and still covers all seven health institutions. - 2026-09-29 · The third amendment to the generative AI platform contract stands, and it still reaches all seven UT health institutions. - 2026-10-02 · The generative AI platform contract still stands at its third amendment and still covers all seven UT health institutions. - 2026-10-05 · The UTMB generative AI platform still stands on its third amendment, now reaching every UT health institution. - 2026-10-08 · UTMB's generative AI platform still runs on its third amendment, which reaches every UT health institution. - 2026-10-11 · UTMB's generative AI platform still runs under its third amendment. - 2026-10-15 · UTMB's generative AI platform still runs under its third amendment, with no fourth on the Regents' record. - 2026-10-18 · UTMB's generative AI platform still runs under the third amendment the Regents saw. No fourth has appeared. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-10-24 · The UTMB generative AI contract still stands at its third amendment, covering all seven UT health institutions. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The agenda book describes what the platform is for. > In December 2024, U.T. Medical Branch - Galveston (UTMB) entered into a Master Subscription Agreement (MSA) with Qualified Health for the Qualified Operating System (qOS) platform and Qualified GPT, which is a secure interface to interact with Generative Artificial Intelligence (Gen AI) models and applications. Source (primary_official): https://www.utsystem.edu/sites/default/files/offices/board-of-regents/board-meetings/agenda-book-full/8-2026AB.pdf ### The agenda book states the first value and that it needed no Board vote. > The initial Agreement had a contract value set at $825,000, which was within the institution's delegated authority threshold and did not require Board approval, and the term was one year with two 12-month renewal options thereafter. Source (primary_official): https://www.utsystem.edu/sites/default/files/offices/board-of-regents/board-meetings/agenda-book-full/8-2026AB.pdf ### The agenda book states the second value and that it also stayed inside the same threshold. > In October 2025, UTMB entered into the First Amendment of the MSA, which transitioned to Qualified Health Enterprise AI Platform and increased the value to $4,250,000, remaining within the institution's delegated authority threshold. Source (primary_official): https://www.utsystem.edu/sites/default/files/offices/board-of-regents/board-meetings/agenda-book-full/8-2026AB.pdf ### The agenda book states what the third amendment adds, what it totals and how far it reaches. > This Third Amendment extends the Qualified Health Technology Platform to all seven U.T. System Health-Related Institutions (HRIs) and will be funded by U.T. System under the UT-REAL-Health AI initiative appropriated by the 89th Texas Legislature. Source (primary_official): https://www.utsystem.edu/sites/default/files/offices/board-of-regents/board-meetings/agenda-book-full/8-2026AB.pdf ### The agenda book gives the term, the added value and the running total. > The term of the Third Amendment is October 31, 2025 through October 30, 2027, and the additional value is $5,600,000 bringing the total value of the Agreement with Qualified Health to $9,850,000. Source (primary_official): https://www.utsystem.edu/sites/default/files/offices/board-of-regents/board-meetings/agenda-book-full/8-2026AB.pdf ### The agenda book states the agreement was competitively procured. > This Agreement was competitively procured. Source (primary_official): https://www.utsystem.edu/sites/default/files/offices/board-of-regents/board-meetings/agenda-book-full/8-2026AB.pdf ### The item is numbered on the consent agenda and names the contracting institution. > 65. Contract (funds going out) - U.T. Medical Branch - Galveston: Amendment to Agreement with Qualified Health, PBC, to provide AI technology platform Source (primary_official): https://www.utsystem.edu/sites/default/files/offices/board-of-regents/board-meetings/agenda-book-full/8-2026AB.pdf ### The initiative paying for the extension is carried in the system budget as a state funded program. > State General Revenue Funded programs include Lone Star Stroke, Texas Child Mental Health Care Consortium (TCMHCC), and REAL-Health-AI Source (primary_official): https://www.utsystem.edu/sites/default/files/offices/board-of-regents/board-meetings/agenda-book-full/8-2026AB.pdf ### The meeting schedule opens with a public hearing opportunity. > Wednesday, August 12, 2026 1:00 p.m. Public Hearing Opportunity Source (primary_official): https://www.utsystem.edu/board-of-regents/meetings/board-meeting-2026-08-12 ### The figure the first agreement was set at. > contract value set at $825,000 Source (primary_official): https://www.utsystem.edu/sites/default/files/offices/board-of-regents/board-meetings/agenda-book-full/8-2026AB.pdf ### The figure the first amendment raised it to. > increased the value to $4,250,000 Source (primary_official): https://www.utsystem.edu/sites/default/files/offices/board-of-regents/board-meetings/agenda-book-full/8-2026AB.pdf --- # UT System Regents put the first billion dollars of the UT Dell Medical Center into the capital program The Board of Regents approved adding the first phase of the UT Dell Medical Center in Austin to the capital improvement program. It acted at its August 12th, 2026 meeting. The agenda book the board took up asks it to amend the program at a total project cost of one billion dollars for that phase. It also asks the board to appropriate that money from revenue financing system bond proceeds. The phase itself is early work and site preparation with a building cost of zero. The board item describes a 27 acre academic medical campus built around a digitally enabled infrastructure, with digital technology, robotics and automation folded into operations. It names MD Anderson as the partner for cancer care. The board's own document never uses the words artificial intelligence. That framing comes from the university's own April release, which describes a center where technology, data and AI are embedded to support clinicians. The debt is repaid from pledged revenues rather than from an appropriation, so the bet is on clinical income. - Topic: health-and-education - Decided by: University of Texas System Board of Regents (state-agency) - Where: Travis - Statistical areas: - Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Closed - Take part: https://www.utsystem.edu/sites/default/files/offices/board-of-regents/board-meetings/agenda-book-full/8-2026AB.pdf - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-08-12 · decided: Board of Regents approved adding Phase 1 to the capital improvement program ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-26 · Admitted. The board's own agenda book carries the recommendation, the phase, the site and the money, and it describes the campus technology as digital rather than as artificial intelligence. The AI framing on this campus comes from the university's own release and is attributed to it here. - 2026-08-26 · Corrected the same day. The entry said the board amended the program, approved the cost and authorized the money. Every source behind it was the agenda book, which is the document BEFORE the meeting and which recommends rather than records. Its own table of contents puts the committee on August 12th and the board on August 13th. UT System publishes no minutes and no record of action for that meeting. A dated report of the meeting was fetched and admitted as c5. The summary now separates what the board approved from what the item asked it to do. - 2026-08-29 · Checked and unchanged. The first phase of the medical center is still in the capital improvement program and the money still comes from revenue financing system bond proceeds. The phase is still early site work rather than a building. - 2026-09-01 · The regents' capital-program commitment for the UT Dell Medical Center remains approved. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-05 · The first billion dollars of the Austin medical center is still in the capital program as approved. - 2026-09-08 · The first billion dollars of the UT Dell Medical Center is still in the capital program where the regents put it. - 2026-09-09 · The first billion dollars of the UT Dell Medical Center is still in the capital program, on the phase the regents approved. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-16 · The first tranche for the UT Dell Medical Center is still in the capital program as approved. The regents have not revisited it. - 2026-09-19 · The first tranche of the medical center is still in the capital program. - 2026-09-23 · The first tranche for the Austin medical center is still in the capital program. - 2026-09-26 · The first tranche of the UT Dell Medical Center is still in the regents' capital program. - 2026-09-29 · The first portion of the UT Dell Medical Center stays in the regents' capital improvement program. - 2026-10-02 · The first portion of the UT Dell Medical Center is still in the regents' capital program. - 2026-10-05 · The Regents' first money for the UT Dell Medical Center still sits in the capital program. - 2026-10-08 · The UT Dell Medical Center's first money is still in the Regents' capital program. - 2026-10-11 · The first money for the UT Dell Medical Center is still in the Regents' capital program. - 2026-10-15 · The first money for the UT Dell Medical Center remains in the Regents' capital program. - 2026-10-18 · The first money for the UT Dell Medical Center remains in the Regents' capital program. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · The first phase money for the UT Dell Medical Center still sits in the UT System capital program. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The recommendation the board acted on names the project and the phase. > U.T. Austin: The UT Dell Medical Center at The University of Texas at Austin, Phase 1 - Early Work and Site Preparation - Amendment of the current Capital Improvement Program to include Phase I; approval of total project cost; approval of design development for Phase I; appropriation of funds and authorization of expenditure; and resolution regarding parity debt Source (primary_official): https://www.utsystem.edu/sites/default/files/offices/board-of-regents/board-meetings/agenda-book-full/8-2026AB.pdf ### The board's own item describes the campus technology as digital rather than as artificial intelligence. > The campus will support a patient-centered model of care, incorporating digital technology, robotics, and automation to improve operations and the experience for patients and care teams. Source (primary_official): https://www.utsystem.edu/sites/default/files/offices/board-of-regents/board-meetings/agenda-book-full/8-2026AB.pdf ### The board item names the site and the acreage. > a transformative new academic medical destination on an approximately 27-acre site in the center of the west (former) Pickle Research Campus Source (primary_official): https://www.utsystem.edu/sites/default/files/offices/board-of-regents/board-meetings/agenda-book-full/8-2026AB.pdf ### The university's own account of the same campus is where the artificial intelligence framing comes from. > one where technology, data and AI are embedded to support clinicians, connect the patient journey and continuously improve outcomes Source (primary_official): https://news.utexas.edu/2026/04/21/michael-and-susan-dell-surpass-1-billion-in-giving-to-ut-austin/ ### A dated report of the meeting establishes that the board approved the addition, which the agenda book only recommended. > The University of Texas System Board of Regents approved adding the first phase of the UT Dell Medical Center to UT’s capital improvement program at an Aug. 12 meeting. Source (journalism): https://communityimpact.com/northwest-austin/development/ut-board-of-regents-approves-first-phase-of-the-ut-dell-medical-center/ --- # Senate Water, Agriculture and Rural Affairs has held both sittings on data center cooling water and published no recommendation The Senate Committee on Water, Agriculture and Rural Affairs carries an interim charge directing it to examine how much water high consumption cooling technologies use. The charge names data centers. The committee sat on Tuesday, September 1st, 2026 and again on Wednesday, September 2nd, 2026 at the Capitol. The Legislature's upcoming meetings listing no longer carries either sitting, which is what a held hearing looks like on that page. No recommendation from the committee has been published, so what it will ask the Legislature to do about cooling water is not yet on the record. - Topic: state-policy - Decided by: Texas Senate Committee on Water, Agriculture and Rural Affairs (legislature) - Where: Statewide - Status: pending - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://senate.texas.gov/cmte.php?c=700 - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-09-01 · hearing: Public hearing, held - 2026-09-02 · hearing: Second public hearing, held ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-26 · Admitted. The committee's own charge names data centers and the Legislature's upcoming listing carries the date and the room. - 2026-08-27 · Checked, and the committee has added a day. The Legislature's listing now carries a second public hearing of the same committee on September 2nd. It sits in the same room as the first. - 2026-08-28 · The Senate committee still sits on September 1st at the Capitol, and the second sitting the next day is still listed. The charge on how much water high consumption cooling uses is still the reason it meets, and a Texan can still show up. - 2026-08-29 · The comment window is still open, closing September 2nd. The committee still meets on the interim charge that names data center cooling water, and the notice still says it hears public as well as invited testimony. - 2026-08-30 · The hearing is still set and the room is still open to file into. Data center cooling water remains on the committee's list, and the window closes September 2nd. - 2026-09-01 · The Senate water committee's data-center hearing remains open to written public submissions through its stated close. - 2026-09-02 · The September 1st sitting was held. The committee's own page carries its recording. The second sitting stands for September 2nd, 2026 in hearing room E1.012, so the door is open today. - 2026-09-05 · Both sittings have been held and the Legislature's upcoming meetings listing no longer carries either of them, which is what a past hearing looks like on that page. The committee still holds the charge on cooling water and has published no recommendation. The door a reader could have walked through has shut and the question behind it is unanswered. - 2026-09-08 · Senate Water, Agriculture and Rural Affairs has still published no recommendation from either of its sittings on data center cooling water. The upcoming meetings list that first carried those dates has moved past them. The committee's own page is now the only place a reader can see that the sittings happened. - 2026-09-08 · The Senate's video archive carries a recording of the September 1st sitting under the committee's own name and date, so what the committee heard can be watched in full. No recommendation from either sitting has been published. - 2026-09-09 · Both water and agriculture sittings on data center water use have now dropped off the chamber's list of upcoming meetings, which carries only what is still ahead. The committee's own page still carries the charge and no recommendation has been published. - 2026-09-12 · Both water and agriculture sittings on data center cooling water are off the chamber's list of upcoming meetings. The committee has still published no recommendation. - 2026-09-13 · The committee's sittings on cooling water now sit in its video archive, and the interim charge that sent it there is still the charge it carries. - 2026-09-16 · Both of the committee's sittings on data center cooling water now sit in its own permanent meeting archive, which is where a held hearing goes. The interim charge that sent it there is still the charge it carries, and it has published no recommendation. - 2026-09-19 · The committee has held both sittings on cooling water and still published no recommendation, so nothing is before the Legislature from it. - 2026-09-23 · Neither sitting is on the senate's list of upcoming meetings any more, so the committee has heard its subject twice and has nothing further scheduled. No recommendation has been published. - 2026-09-26 · The Senate committee has held both sittings on cooling water and still has published no recommendation. - 2026-09-29 · The Senate committee has published no recommendation from either of its sittings on data center cooling water. - 2026-10-02 · The committee's page still lists both September sittings and still carries no recommendation on cooling water. The room the first sitting used is no longer posted on any page the record can read, so the record no longer names it. - 2026-10-05 · The Senate water committee has still published no recommendation from its two sittings on data center cooling water. - 2026-10-08 · The Senate water committee has still issued no recommendation on data center cooling water. - 2026-10-11 · The Senate water committee has still published no recommendation on cooling water for data centers. - 2026-10-15 · The Senate water committee has still published no recommendation on cooling water for data centers. - 2026-10-18 · The Senate water committee has held both sittings on cooling water and still shows no recommendation. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-10-24 · Senate Water, Agriculture and Rural Affairs' record of its two sittings on data center cooling water still reads as before. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The committee's interim charge names data centers as the cooling technology to be examined. > Assessing the Water Demands of Energy-Intensive Technologies: Examine the current water consumption rates for high-consumption cooling technologies, including data centers. Source (primary_official): https://senate.texas.gov/cmte.php?c=700 ### The same charge list pairs the question with desalination and permitting. > Evaluating Desalination Viability and Regulatory Efficiency: Inventory existing facilities and review the permitting framework across relevant state agencies to improve efficiency. Source (primary_official): https://senate.texas.gov/cmte.php?c=700 ### The Legislature's upcoming meetings listing carries the date and the room. > September 1, 2026 9:00 AM Source (primary_official): https://capitol.texas.gov/Committees/MeetingsByCmte.aspx?Leg=89&Chamber=S&CmteCode=C700 ### The listing names the committee taking the September 1st hearing. > Committee on Water, Agriculture and Rural Affairs (C700) Source (primary_official): https://capitol.texas.gov/Committees/MeetingsByCmte.aspx?Leg=89&Chamber=S&CmteCode=C700 ### The committee's own page lists the September 1st sitting among its hearings and events. > September 1, 2026 Source (primary_official): https://senate.texas.gov/cmte.php?c=700 ### The Legislature's upcoming meetings listing carries a second sitting of the same committee the following day. > September 2, 2026 9:00 AM Source (primary_official): https://capitol.texas.gov/Committees/MeetingsByCmte.aspx?Leg=89&Chamber=S&CmteCode=C700 ### The Legislature's listing carries the second sitting on September 2nd. > September 2, 2026 9:00 AM Source (primary_official): https://capitol.texas.gov/Committees/MeetingsByCmte.aspx?Leg=89&Chamber=S&CmteCode=C700 ### The Senate's own video archive carries the committee's September 1st sitting under that committee's name and date. > Senate Committee on Water, Agriculture, and Rural Affairs, September 1, 2026 | Texas Senate Video Source (primary_official): https://senate.texas.gov/videoplayer.php?vid=22662&lang=en --- # Texas requires AI training for state and local government employees, and this is the first annual cycle House Bill 3512 of the 89th Regular Session created artificial intelligence training programs for certain employees and officials of state agencies and local governments. Its author was Giovanni Capriglione and its sponsor was Cesar Blanco. It took effect on September 1st, 2025. The Legislature indexes it under artificial intelligence and under the Department of Information Resources, which is the agency that certifies which programs satisfy it. Which programs carry that certification is unconfirmed. So is the date by which an entity files its compliance certification. - Topic: state-policy - Decided by: Texas Legislature (legislature) - Where: Statewide - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=HB3512 - Last checked: 2026-09-29 ## Dates - 2025-09-01 · effective: Effective date of House Bill 3512 ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-26 · Admitted. The Legislature's own bill record carries the caption, the authors and the effective date. Which training programs satisfy the requirement is unconfirmed, and so is the date an entity certifies. Both are published by the Department of Information Resources rather than by the Legislature. - 2026-08-29 · Checked and unchanged. The training requirement still stands and the Department of Information Resources is still the agency that certifies a program against it. This is still the first annual cycle, so no entity has yet been through it twice. - 2026-09-01 · The annual artificial-intelligence training mandate for state and local employees remains in force. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-05 · The AI training requirement still binds state and local government employees and this is still the first annual cycle. No completion figures have been published. - 2026-09-08 · The AI training requirement for state and local government employees is still in its first annual cycle, with no published completion figures. - 2026-09-09 · The AI training requirement for state and local government employees is still in force and this is still its first annual cycle. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-16 · The state's AI training requirement is still in its first annual cycle, and the obligation still falls on state and local government employees alike. No extension has been published. - 2026-09-19 · The training requirement is still in its first annual cycle, so no full year of it has been completed anywhere. - 2026-09-23 · The training requirement is still running its first annual cycle with no change to what it asks. - 2026-09-26 · The training requirement for state and local employees is still in its first annual cycle, unchanged. - 2026-09-29 · State and local employees are still in the first annual cycle of required artificial intelligence training, on unchanged terms. - 2026-10-02 · That the training requirement stands is unconfirmed this run. The bill's history sits on a path this project does not read. - 2026-10-03 · That the training requirement stands is still unconfirmed. The bill's history sits on a path this project does not read. - 2026-10-04 · That the training requirement stands is still unconfirmed. The bill's history sits on a path that bars automated readers. - 2026-10-05 · That the AI training requirement for state and local employees still stands is unconfirmed this time. The bill's history sits on a path that bars automated readers. - 2026-10-06 · The AI training requirement for state and local employees is still unconfirmed this time. The bill's record sits on a path closed to automated readers. - 2026-10-07 · The AI training requirement for state and local employees is still unconfirmed on the Legislature's bill page, which bars automated readers. - 2026-10-08 · The AI training requirement for state and local employees remains unconfirmed on the Legislature's bill page, which still bars automated readers. - 2026-10-09 · The AI training requirement for state and local employees remains unconfirmed on the bill page, which still bars automated readers. - 2026-10-10 · The AI training requirement for state and local employees stays unconfirmed on the bill page, which bars automated readers. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The Legislature's own page names the bill and the session it passed in. > History for 89(R) HB 3512 by Capriglione Source (primary_official): https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=HB3512 ### The enrolled caption states what the bill does. > Relating to artificial intelligence training programs for certain employees and officials of state agencies and local governments. Source (primary_official): https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=HB3512 ### The Legislature's own record gives the effective date. > Effective on 9/1/25 Source (primary_official): https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=HB3512 ### The Legislature indexes the bill against the agency that certifies the training. > INFORMATION RESOURCES, DEPARTMENT OF (V9827) Source (primary_official): https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=HB3512 --- # NSF funds a Rice laboratory where a model designs the experiment and a robot runs it, bookable from anywhere The National Science Foundation award to William Marsh Rice University funds READINESS, a cloud accessible robotic laboratory for synthesizing electronic and quantum materials. AI plans the experiments and the equipment executes them. The award record calls the result a self-driving laboratory and says it is meant to run with minimal human intervention. SUNY Poly and the University of Texas at Austin are named alongside Rice. What the award promises is access rather than speed alone, putting capability that existed in a handful of laboratories behind tools a researcher elsewhere can reach. - Topic: research-and-science - Decided by: National Science Foundation (federal) - Where: Harris, Travis - Statistical areas: - Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX - Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Closed - Take part: https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2607553.json - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-08-01 · effective: Award start date recorded by the National Science Foundation ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-26 · Admitted. The award record and the university's own account agree on what the platform is and who may use it. - 2026-08-29 · Checked and unchanged. The award to Rice still funds a laboratory where a model proposes the next experiment and a robot runs it. The university still frames the machine as complementing a researcher's judgment rather than replacing it. The platform is still described as one researchers elsewhere will be able to reach. - 2026-09-02 · The award is still listed as active on the funding agency's own record, with its dates and program unchanged. The university's own announcement could not be read, so what it says about the laboratory is unconfirmed. - 2026-09-03 · The award is still active on the funding agency's own record, with its start date, its end date and its program unchanged. The university's own announcement refuses this project's clients outright, a browser user agent included. Three claims that rested on it now cite the award record, which carries the same substance and answers. One sentence has come out of the summary with them. The university's framing of responsible AI as complementing rather than replacing a researcher's judgment appears nowhere in the award record, so the record no longer prints it. - 2026-09-07 · The funding agency's own award record still carries READINESS as active, with its program and its dates unchanged. Rice is still named alongside SUNY Poly and the University of Texas at Austin, and the laboratory is still described there as meant to run with minimal human intervention. - 2026-09-10 · The Rice laboratory award still stands as made, and the description of a model that designs the experiment and reads the result is still the foundation's own. Nothing has moved on it. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-16 · The Rice laboratory where a model designs the experiment and a robot runs it is still funded and still bookable from outside. Nothing has closed the outside route. - 2026-09-19 · The Rice laboratory is still funded and still bookable from outside the campus, with the model designing and the robot running. - 2026-09-23 · The Rice laboratory still designs the experiment and runs it, and it is still bookable from outside. - 2026-09-26 · The Rice laboratory where a model designs the experiment and a robot runs it is still funded and still bookable from outside. - 2026-09-29 · At the Rice laboratory a model still plans the experiment and a robot still runs it, with booking open to researchers elsewhere. - 2026-10-02 · At Rice the model still designs the experiment and the robot still runs it, and researchers elsewhere can still book it. - 2026-10-05 · The NSF award to Rice for a laboratory where a model designs the experiment and a robot runs it still stands. - 2026-10-08 · Rice's NSF laboratory, where a model plans the experiment and a robot runs it, is still funded. - 2026-10-11 · Rice's NSF laboratory, where a model plans the experiment and a robot runs it, is still funded. - 2026-10-15 · Rice's laboratory where a model designs the experiment and a robot runs it is still funded. - 2026-10-18 · The Rice laboratory where a model designs the experiment and a robot runs it is still funded. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · The Rice laboratory where a model designs the experiment and a robot runs it is still funded and still bookable remotely. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The award record names the project. > PCL-Test Bed: Revolutionizing AI-Driven Autonomous Experimentation for Next-Generation Semiconductor Synthesis (READINESS) Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2607553.json?printFields=id,title,awardeeName,startDate,expDate,estimatedTotalAmt,fundProgramName,abstractText ### The award record states what the platform is meant to be. > The platform will function as a "self-driving laboratory" capable of autonomously designing, testing, and improving material-synthesis processes with minimal human intervention. Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2607553.json?printFields=id,title,awardeeName,startDate,expDate,estimatedTotalAmt,fundProgramName,abstractText ### The award names the institutions working on it together. > Rice University, SUNY Poly, and the University of Texas at Austin Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2607553.json?printFields=id,title,awardeeName,startDate,expDate,estimatedTotalAmt,fundProgramName,abstractText ### The award states that what is built is meant to be reachable from elsewhere. > create remotely accessible tools that will broadly benefit researchers, students, technologists, and industry partners nationwide Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2607553.json?printFields=id,title,awardeeName,startDate,expDate,estimatedTotalAmt,fundProgramName,abstractText --- # The Army funds a Rice research center on antenna arrays that carries AI as one of six disciplines The United States Army Research Office established a five year research center at Rice University for secure sensing, imaging and communications. Edward Knightly of the electrical and computer engineering department leads it. The center studies extremely large antenna arrays. It lists artificial intelligence alongside wireless networking, antennas, radar, circuits and physics. The release describes no specific AI method. What the models will actually do inside the work is not yet on the public record. - Topic: research-and-science - Decided by: United States Army Research Office (federal) - Where: Harris - Statistical areas: - Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Closed - Take part: https://news.rice.edu/news/2026/rice-lead-15m-army-research-center-next-generation-sensing-and-communications - Last checked: 2026-10-21 ## Dates - 2026-08-04 · decided: Rice announced the award establishing the center ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-26 · Admitted. The university names artificial intelligence as one discipline in the center and describes no method, which is what is on the record and no more. - 2026-08-29 · Checked and unchanged. The Army award to Rice still stands and artificial intelligence is still one discipline among the several the center combines. The modeling framework it funds is still described as simulating electromagnetic environments in real time. - 2026-09-02 · The research center stands as funded and the university has published no change to its scope. - 2026-09-05 · The Army funded center on antenna arrays at Rice still stands as awarded, with AI still one of its named discipline areas. - 2026-09-08 · The Army funded Rice center on antenna arrays still lists artificial intelligence among the disciplines it draws on. The university's own announcement of it would not answer this run, so the award terms rest on the federal record rather than on a fresh reading of that page. - 2026-09-09 · The Army's research center at Rice on antenna arrays is still funded, with artificial intelligence still one thread of it rather than the whole. - 2026-09-12 · The Army's research center at Rice on antenna arrays is still funded, with artificial intelligence still one thread of it rather than the whole. The university page carrying the description would not answer this run, so the wording of it is unconfirmed today. - 2026-09-13 · The Army's center at Rice is still funded. Artificial intelligence is still one thread among the disciplines the university names rather than the whole of it. - 2026-09-16 · The Army's funding of the Rice antenna research center still stands as awarded, and artificial intelligence is still one of the directions it names. Nothing has changed the award. - 2026-09-19 · The Army's award to the Houston campus is unchanged, and artificial intelligence is still one discipline inside the center rather than its subject. - 2026-09-23 · The Army's five year center at the Houston campus still stands, and artificial intelligence is still one discipline inside it rather than its subject. - 2026-09-26 · Whether the Army center at Rice still stands as announced is unconfirmed this run. The university's own account of the award could not be read again. - 2026-09-27 · The university's account of the Army center still reads as announced, with artificial intelligence still one discipline among six. - 2026-09-30 · The university's account of the Army funded research center still reads as published. - 2026-10-03 · Rice's account of the Army funded antenna array center still reads as published, with AI among the disciplines it names. - 2026-10-06 · Rice's account of the Army funded antenna array center still reads as published, AI still among the fields it names. - 2026-10-09 · Rice's account of the Army funded antenna array center still reads as published, AI among the disciplines it names. - 2026-10-12 · Rice's Army funded antenna array center still names AI as one of its disciplines. - 2026-10-15 · Rice's release on the Army funded antenna array center still names AI among its disciplines. - 2026-10-18 · Rice's release on the Army funded center for antenna arrays still names AI among its disciplines. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · The Army funded antenna array center at Rice is unconfirmed today, since the university's release refused the request. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The release lists artificial intelligence as one of the disciplines the center combines. > the center combines expertise in wireless networking, antennas, radar, artificial intelligence, circuits and physics to address growing demands on wireless systems. Source (primary_official): https://news.rice.edu/news/2026/rice-lead-15m-army-research-center-next-generation-sensing-and-communications ### The centre's director states what the work is meant to produce. > This center gives us the opportunity to develop the science and engineering needed for a new generation of wireless networks with radically new capabilities, resilience and security Source (primary_official): https://news.rice.edu/news/2026/rice-lead-15m-army-research-center-next-generation-sensing-and-communications --- # UT Austin puts a computer science and AI course in the core every undergraduate takes The University of Texas at Austin published a new Core Curriculum on August 13th, 2026 that names Computer Science and AI among the foundational courses. The others alongside it are Great Questions of Human Life, Western Civilization and Great Ideas in Science. The university says the core will be introduced in phases starting with new courses in the autumn of 2027, so no student sits the requirement yet. A history major on that campus will take an AI course to graduate, which is a different kind of AI decision from buying a machine. - Topic: health-and-education - Decided by: University of Texas at Austin (state-agency) - Where: Travis - Statistical areas: - Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Closed - Take part: https://news.utexas.edu/2026/08/13/new-core-curriculum-refocuses-undergraduate-education-at-ut-austin/ - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-08-13 · decided: The university published the new Core Curriculum - 2027-09-01 · effective: New courses introduced, per the university's stated phasing ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-26 · Admitted. The published course list names the AI course and the university states when the courses arrive. - 2026-08-29 · Checked and unchanged. Computer Science and AI is still named in the published core curriculum alongside the other foundational courses. The phased introduction still means no undergraduate sits the requirement yet. - 2026-09-01 · UT Austin's computer-science and artificial-intelligence core course remains approved for all undergraduates. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-05 · The computer science and AI course is still in the core curriculum every Austin undergraduate takes. - 2026-09-08 · The computer science and AI course is still in the core curriculum every UT Austin undergraduate takes. - 2026-09-09 · The computer science and artificial intelligence requirement is still in the core every UT Austin undergraduate takes. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-16 · The computer science and artificial intelligence requirement is still in UT Austin's core, so it still reaches every undergraduate. The requirement has not been narrowed. - 2026-09-19 · The course is still in the core every undergraduate takes, so the requirement reaches students who chose no computing subject. - 2026-09-23 · The core course still reaches every undergraduate on the Austin campus. - 2026-09-26 · The computer science and AI course is still in the core curriculum every Austin undergraduate takes. - 2026-09-29 · Every UT Austin undergraduate still takes the computer science and AI course in the core. - 2026-10-02 · The computer science and AI course is still part of the core every UT Austin undergraduate takes. - 2026-10-05 · UT Austin's computer science and AI course still sits in the core every undergraduate takes. - 2026-10-08 · The computer science and AI course is still part of the core curriculum every UT Austin undergraduate takes. - 2026-10-11 · The computer science and AI course still sits in the core every UT Austin undergraduate takes. - 2026-10-15 · The computer science and AI course remains in the core every UT Austin undergraduate takes. - 2026-10-18 · The computer science and AI course is still part of the core every UT Austin undergraduate takes. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · UT Austin's core curriculum still carries the computer science and AI course every undergraduate takes. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The published list of foundational courses names the AI course. > Great Questions of Human Life, Masterworks of Literature, Western Civilization, World Politics and Culture, Principles of American Politics, Great Ideas in Science, and Computer Science and AI Source (primary_official): https://news.utexas.edu/2026/08/13/new-core-curriculum-refocuses-undergraduate-education-at-ut-austin/ ### The university states when the courses arrive. > UT will implement the new Core Curriculum in phases, beginning with the introduction of new courses in fall 2027. Source (primary_official): https://news.utexas.edu/2026/08/13/new-core-curriculum-refocuses-undergraduate-education-at-ut-austin/ --- # Houston Methodist put an imaging AI in front of its radiologists and says out loud that it is imperfect Houston Methodist rolled out a suite of AI imaging tools across the system, starting with a small group of users before widening it. The tool flags a suspected finding on a scan and draws a heat map to direct the radiologist's attention. The stated aims are faster emergency response and cleaner patient follow up. The hospital's own account says the system is not perfect and quotes a radiologist making the same point. That is a more careful public position than a deployment of this kind usually carries. - Topic: health-and-education - Decided by: Houston Methodist (company) - Where: Harris - Statistical areas: - Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Closed - Take part: https://www.houstonmethodist.org/leading-medicine-blog/articles/2026/jun/houston-methodist-launches-systemwide-ai-platform-to-transform-imaging-emergency-response-care/ - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-06-29 · decided: Houston Methodist published its account of the systemwide rollout ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-26 · Admitted. The hospital's own account names the tool, describes what it puts on the radiologist's screen and states its limit. - 2026-08-29 · Checked and unchanged. The imaging tools are still in front of the system's radiologists, and the hospital's own account still says out loud that the system is imperfect. The tool still flags a finding for a radiologist rather than deciding it. - 2026-09-01 · Houston Methodist's imaging model remains deployed ahead of radiologist review with its stated limitations intact. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-05 · The Houston hospital still runs the imaging model in front of its radiologists and still says in its own words that it is imperfect. The decider type is corrected here from special-district to company, because a special district is a unit of Texas local government and this is a private hospital system. - 2026-09-08 · Houston Methodist still runs the imaging AI in front of its radiologists and still says in its own words that the tool is imperfect. - 2026-09-09 · Houston Methodist still has the imaging model in front of its radiologists and still says in public that it is in use rather than in trial. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-16 · Houston Methodist still has the imaging tool in front of its radiologists and still says plainly that it is imperfect. The caveat has not been quietly dropped. - 2026-09-19 · The imaging tool is still in front of the radiologists, and the hospital has not withdrawn what it said about the tool being imperfect. - 2026-09-23 · The imaging tool is still in front of the radiologists, and the hospital still says out loud that it is imperfect. - 2026-09-26 · Houston Methodist's imaging tool is still in front of its radiologists, and the hospital still calls it imperfect. - 2026-09-29 · Houston Methodist's imaging AI is still in use by its radiologists, and the hospital's own description still calls it imperfect. - 2026-10-02 · Houston Methodist's radiologists still work with the imaging AI, and the hospital still describes it as imperfect. - 2026-10-05 · Houston Methodist still puts the imaging AI in front of its radiologists and still calls it imperfect in its own words. - 2026-10-08 · Houston Methodist still runs the imaging AI in front of its radiologists and still describes it as imperfect. - 2026-10-11 · Houston Methodist still puts the imaging AI in front of its radiologists and still calls it imperfect. - 2026-10-15 · Houston Methodist's account still puts the imaging AI in front of its radiologists and still calls it imperfect. - 2026-10-18 · Houston Methodist still describes the imaging AI as a tool before its radiologists that is not perfect. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · Houston Methodist still runs the imaging AI for its radiologists and still calls the tool imperfect in its own words. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The hospital names the tool and describes what it puts on the radiologist's screen. > The specific tool, called Aidoc, automatically flags potential issues and displays a visual heat map to help guide radiologists' attention. Source (primary_official): https://www.houstonmethodist.org/leading-medicine-blog/articles/2026/jun/houston-methodist-launches-systemwide-ai-platform-to-transform-imaging-emergency-response-care/ ### The hospital states the limit in its own words. > Like all AI-supported tools, the system is not perfect. Source (primary_official): https://www.houstonmethodist.org/leading-medicine-blog/articles/2026/jun/houston-methodist-launches-systemwide-ai-platform-to-transform-imaging-emergency-response-care/ --- # UT Southwestern says AI now does most of the grading on its medical students' clinical exam notes UT Southwestern Medical Center built a process that reads and grades the post encounter notes students write after their objective structured clinical examinations. The medical school says it has replaced more than 91 percent of human grading since the autumn of 2023 and returns results in days rather than weeks. The stated reason is that grading those notes by hand is slow and inconsistent. The page names no model and no vendor, and it carries no publication date, so how current the figure is can't be established from it. - Topic: health-and-education - Decided by: University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (state-agency) - Where: Dallas - Statistical areas: - Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Closed - Take part: https://www.utsouthwestern.edu/research/scientific-report/articles/ai-innovations-in-medical-education.html - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-27 · Admitted. The medical school still states that the artificial intelligence grading process has replaced more than 91 percent of human grading of these notes since the autumn of 2023. It still gives inconsistency in manual grading as the reason for building it. - 2026-08-30 · Unchanged. The school still says the model does most of the grading on its students' clinical exam notes. - 2026-09-01 · UT Southwestern's use of artificial intelligence to grade clinical-exam notes remains documented as current practice. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-05 · The Dallas medical school still says AI does most of the grading on its students' clinical exam notes. Nothing has been withdrawn. - 2026-09-08 · UT Southwestern still says AI does most of the grading on its medical students' clinical exam notes. - 2026-09-09 · UT Southwestern still has AI doing most of the grading on its medical students' clinical exam notes, and has published no change to the arrangement. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-16 · UT Southwestern still says the model does most of the grading on its students' clinical exam notes. The claim has not been revised or withdrawn. - 2026-09-19 · The grading arrangement is unchanged, and the school has not revised what it said about how much of it the machine does. - 2026-09-23 · Most of the grading on those clinical notes is still done by machine, which the school still says in its own words. - 2026-09-26 · UT Southwestern still says the machine does most of the grading on its students' clinical exam notes. - 2026-09-29 · UT Southwestern's account still has software doing most of the grading on students' clinical exam notes. - 2026-10-02 · UT Southwestern still says software does most of the grading on its students' clinical exam notes. - 2026-10-05 · UT Southwestern still says AI does most of the grading on its students' clinical exam notes. - 2026-10-08 · UT Southwestern still says AI grades most of its students' clinical exam notes. - 2026-10-11 · UT Southwestern still says AI does most of the grading on clinical exam notes. - 2026-10-15 · UT Southwestern still says AI grades most of its students' clinical exam notes. - 2026-10-18 · UT Southwestern's account still has AI grading most of its students' clinical exam notes. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · UT Southwestern still says AI does most of the grading on its medical students' clinical exam notes. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The medical school states how much of the grading the process has taken over. > Since fall 2023, the AI evaluation process has transformed OSCE feedback for UT Southwestern medical students, replacing more than 91% of human grading and delivering results within days versus weeks Source (primary_official): https://www.utsouthwestern.edu/research/scientific-report/articles/ai-innovations-in-medical-education.html ### The stated reason is the cost and inconsistency of grading by hand. > The process of manually reviewing and grading these notes is labor-intensive, time-consuming, and prone to inconsistency Source (primary_official): https://www.utsouthwestern.edu/research/scientific-report/articles/ai-innovations-in-medical-education.html --- # Four Texas campuses took roles in the Energy Department's AI for science program The Department of Energy announced the recipients of its Genesis Mission in Washington on July 22nd, 2026. UT Austin leads two projects and partners on three more. UT Arlington leads a project on keeping AI driven experiment workflows trustworthy at large scientific facilities. Texas A&M announced its own participation five days later. The program routes federal science money through an explicitly AI first frame, so Texas campuses are competing inside that frame rather than around it. The size of the round is the universities' own restatement of the announcement rather than a figure the department published where it could be read. - Topic: research-and-science - Decided by: United States Department of Energy (federal) - Where: Travis, Tarrant, Brazos - Statistical areas: - Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX - College Station-Bryan, TX - Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Closed - Take part: https://news.utexas.edu/2026/07/22/department-of-energys-new-ai-for-science-genesis-mission-awards-funding-to-5-ut-research-projects/ - Last checked: 2026-10-22 ## Dates - 2026-07-22 · decided: Recipients announced in Washington ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-26 · Admitted. Each university publishes its own account of what it won. No Department of Energy page was read, so the size of the round rests on the universities restating the announcement. - 2026-08-29 · Checked and unchanged. The four Texas campuses still hold the roles the department announced. The program still routes federal science money through an explicitly artificial intelligence first frame. - 2026-09-01 · The four Texas campuses retain their named roles in the Energy Department's artificial-intelligence-for-science program. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-05 · All four Texas campuses still hold their roles in the Energy Department's AI for science program. - 2026-09-08 · All four Texas campuses still hold their roles in the Energy Department's AI for science program. - 2026-09-09 · All four Texas campuses still hold their roles in the Energy Department's AI for science program. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-16 · All four campuses still hold the roles the Energy Department program gave them. No campus has been added or removed. - 2026-09-19 · All four campuses still hold their roles in the federal science program. - 2026-09-23 · All four campuses still hold their roles in the federal science program. - 2026-09-26 · The four campuses still hold their roles in the Energy Department's program. - 2026-09-29 · The four Texas campuses keep their roles in the Energy Department's program on AI for science. - 2026-10-02 · All four Texas campuses still hold their roles in the Energy Department's AI for science program. - 2026-10-05 · The four Texas campuses still hold their roles in the Energy Department's AI for science program. - 2026-10-08 · The four Texas campuses keep their roles in the Energy Department's AI for science program. - 2026-10-11 · All four Texas campuses keep their roles in the Energy Department's AI for science program. - 2026-10-15 · The four Texas campuses keep their roles in the Energy Department's AI for science program. - 2026-10-18 · The four Texas campuses still hold their roles in the Energy Department's AI for science program. - 2026-10-22 · The Energy Department's program page still lists the Texas campuses in the AI for science effort. UT Arlington's own account is unconfirmed today, since its site did not answer. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### UT Austin states the size of the round and the date it was announced. > The Department of Energy received more than 5,000 applications and awarded funding to 278 projects led by national laboratories, institutions of higher education, companies and nonprofit organizations. Recipients were announced in Washington, D.C., on July 22. Source (primary_official): https://news.utexas.edu/2026/07/22/department-of-energys-new-ai-for-science-genesis-mission-awards-funding-to-5-ut-research-projects/ ### UT Arlington names the project it leads and the question it is asking. > The project—Real-Time Trust and Resilience for AI-Driven EPICS Scientific Workflows—is part of the Genesis Mission and will be led by Habeeb Olufowobi, a faculty member in UTA's Department of Computer Science and Engineering. Source (primary_official): https://www.uta.edu/news/news-releases/2026/07/22/uta-selected-for-land-mark-doe-ai-initiative --- # National Science Foundation funds a five year human and robot co-adaptation center at UT Austin The National Science Foundation made award 2535195 to the University of Texas at Austin on August 25th, 2026. It funds a Science and Technology Center on human and robot co adaptation. The award record carries an estimated total for the full five years in the agency's own award service. It records the fiscal year 2026 obligation as $5,999,999.00. The project runs from September 1st, 2026 to August 31st, 2031. Joydeep Biswas is the principal investigator. The stated problem is that robots leaving the laboratory for homes and hospitals and workplaces have to understand and adapt to people over time. The university names the places the work runs in. They are houses and dorms and cafes and a public museum and a rehabilitation hospital and elder care and assisted living residences. It also states that an internal ethics board will oversee the research and develop the consent and opt out procedures. The rooms are named and the rules for the people in them are not written yet. - Topic: research-and-science - Decided by: United States National Science Foundation (federal) - Where: Travis - Statistical areas: - Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/show-award?AWD_ID=2535195 - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-08-25 · decided: Award date recorded on the agency's own award record - 2026-09-01 · effective: Project start date on the award record ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-27 · Admitted. The agency's award record carries the center, the institution, the dates and the money, and the abstract states what the work is for. - 2026-08-28 · Checked and unchanged. The award for the human and robot co adaptation center still stands on the agency's record, with the same fiscal year obligation and the same project period. - 2026-08-29 · Checked and unchanged. The award to the University of Texas at Austin still funds a center on how robots and the people beside them adapt to each other. The director named on the award record has not changed. - 2026-08-29 · The university published its own account of the award and it names the places the research runs in. The agency's award record does not name them. They are ordinary rooms rather than laboratories, among them houses and dorms and cafes and a rehabilitation hospital and assisted living residences. The same account says an internal ethics board will develop the consent and opt out procedures. - 2026-08-30 · The five year award still stands. The consent and opt out procedures its own abstract leaves to be developed are still not published. - 2026-09-01 · The federal award for UT Austin's human-and-robot co-adaptation center remains active. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-05 · The five year human and robot co-adaptation center at Austin still stands as funded and its award is unchanged. - 2026-09-08 · The human and robot co-adaptation center at UT Austin is still funded for its full term, and the consent procedures it named are still to be developed. - 2026-09-09 · The five year human and robot co-adaptation center at UT Austin is still funded for its full term. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-16 · The UT Austin center on how people and robots adapt to each other is still funded across its full term. Nothing has altered the award. - 2026-09-19 · The center is funded for its full term and the award has not been amended. - 2026-09-23 · The co-adaptation center is still funded for its full five years. - 2026-09-26 · The co-adaptation center at UT Austin is still funded for its full term. - 2026-09-29 · The human and robot co-adaptation center at UT Austin keeps its full funded term. - 2026-10-02 · UT Austin's center on how people and robots adapt to each other keeps its full funded term. - 2026-10-05 · The NSF center for human and robot co-adaptation at UT Austin still stands as funded. - 2026-10-08 · UT Austin's NSF center on how humans and robots adapt to each other is still funded. - 2026-10-11 · The human and robot co-adaptation center at UT Austin remains funded by NSF. - 2026-10-15 · The human and robot co-adaptation center at UT Austin is still funded. - 2026-10-18 · The five year center for human and robot co-adaptation at UT Austin is still funded. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · The NSF funded human and robot co-adaptation center at UT Austin is still active. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The agency states the problem the center exists to solve. > For robots to transition from research laboratories to effective collaborators in homes, hospitals, workplaces, and public spaces, they must be able to understand, interact with, and adapt to people over time. Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2535195.json ### The award record names the center and the institution that holds it. > STC: Center for Human and Robot Co-Adaptation Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2535195.json ### The award record carries the estimated total and the date the project runs to. > "estimatedTotalAmt":"29999998","expDate":"08/31/2031" Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2535195.json ### The award record carries the amount obligated so far and the award number. > "fundsObligatedAmt":"5999999","histAwd":"false","id":"2535195" Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2535195.json ### The award record names the institution holding the award and the date the agency made it. > "awardeeName":"University of Texas at Austin" Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2535195.json ### The award record carries the date of the award and the date the project starts. > "date":"08/25/2026" Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2535195.json ### The award record carries the project start date. > "startDate":"09/01/2026" Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2535195.json ### The award service reports the fiscal year obligation as a formatted string in its fundsObligated array, beside the same amount as bare digits in fundsObligatedAmt. > FY 2026 = $5,999,999.00 Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2535195.json ### The university names the real places the research runs in. > The research will be grounded in findings from the Human Environment with Robots (HERO) Facility Network, a set of real-world deployment sites hosted at UT and the partner institutions: houses, dorms, cafés, a public museum, a rehabilitation hospital, and elder-care and assisted-living residences. Source (primary_official): https://news.utexas.edu/2026/08/27/ut-to-lead-nsf-center-that-will-study-how-robots-and-people-learn-to-live-and-work-together/ ### The university states that the rules for the people in those places are still to be written. > An internal ethics board will oversee the research and develop consent and opt-out procedures. Source (primary_official): https://news.utexas.edu/2026/08/27/ut-to-lead-nsf-center-that-will-study-how-robots-and-people-learn-to-live-and-work-together/ ### The university states the size and the span of the award in its own words. > The five-year, $30 million award will bring together researchers from disciplines spanning artificial intelligence, robotics, cognitive science and social science to not just build better robots, but also to understand how humans and robots can coexist. Source (primary_official): https://news.utexas.edu/2026/08/27/ut-to-lead-nsf-center-that-will-study-how-robots-and-people-learn-to-live-and-work-together/ ### The university names the companies collaborating on the center. > Industry collaborators include Amazon, Apptronik, Diligent Robotics, Google DeepMind, Hello Robot, MassRobotics, NVIDIA and Robust AI. Source (primary_official): https://news.utexas.edu/2026/08/27/ut-to-lead-nsf-center-that-will-study-how-robots-and-people-learn-to-live-and-work-together/ ### The principal investigator states what the center is trying to change. > It is enabling robots to understand the people around them: their needs, preferences, values and constraints, while recognizing that people also adapt their behavior when they integrate robots into their environment. Source (primary_official): https://news.utexas.edu/2026/08/27/ut-to-lead-nsf-center-that-will-study-how-robots-and-people-learn-to-live-and-work-together/ ### The university names the partner institutions the sites are hosted at. > Partner universities are the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Yale University, Indiana University Bloomington, the University of Utah, and Tufts University. Source (primary_official): https://news.utexas.edu/2026/08/27/ut-to-lead-nsf-center-that-will-study-how-robots-and-people-learn-to-live-and-work-together/ --- # A statewide poll finds most Texas voters oppose a data center in their own community for a second survey running The Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas at Austin polled 1200 registered Texas voters from August 5th to 13th, 2026. It reported that 57 percent oppose the construction of a data center in their community. Only 30 percent expressed support. The project calls the result statistically indistinguishable from its June reading. Republicans split closely in August at 45 percent supporting against 43 percent opposing. Democrats and independents stayed decisively opposed. - Topic: data-centers - Decided by: Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas at Austin (state-agency) - Where: Statewide - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://texaspolitics.utexas.edu/blog/new-ut-texas-politics-project-poll-finds-talarico-leading-paxton-abbott-leading-hinojosa-continued-resistance-to-data-centers-2 - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-08-13 · filed: Last day of the polling field period ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-27 · Admitted. The project's own release carries the split, the field dates, the sample size and the margin of error. - 2026-08-30 · The poll result stands. A majority of Texas voters still say they do not want a data center in their own community. - 2026-09-01 · The statewide survey continues to show local opposition to data-center development in its published results. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-05 · The poll finding that most Texas voters oppose a data center in their own community still stands as published across two surveys. - 2026-09-08 · The statewide poll finding most Texas voters oppose a data center in their own community still stands, and it is still the second survey to find it. - 2026-09-09 · The statewide poll finding most Texas voters against a data center in their own community is still the most recent reading of the question. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-16 · The poll finding that most Texas voters oppose a data center in their own community still stands as published for a second survey running. Neither survey has been corrected. - 2026-09-19 · The poll stands as published, and it is still the second survey running to find most Texas voters against a data center near them. - 2026-09-23 · The second survey still finds most Texas voters against one in their own community. - 2026-09-26 · The poll's finding still stands. Most Texas voters opposed a data center in their own community in a second survey. - 2026-09-29 · The poll stands as published. In a second survey most Texas voters opposed a data center in their own community. - 2026-10-02 · The poll stands as published, with most Texas voters opposed to a data center in their own community. - 2026-10-05 · The poll finding that most Texas voters oppose a data center in their own community still reads as published. - 2026-10-08 · The poll showing most Texas voters oppose a data center near their own home reads as it was published. - 2026-10-11 · The poll on Texans opposing a data center near home still reads as published. - 2026-10-15 · The poll finding most Texas voters oppose a data center near home reads as published. - 2026-10-18 · The poll reads as published. Most Texas voters it asked still oppose a data center in their own community. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · The poll finding that most Texas voters oppose a data center in their own community still stands as published. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The project reports the split on building a data center locally. > For the second consecutive survey, a majority of Texans, 57%, said that they oppose the construction of a data center in their community, while only 30% expressed support, with the remaining 14% expressing no opinion. Source (primary_official): https://texaspolitics.utexas.edu/blog/new-ut-texas-politics-project-poll-finds-talarico-leading-paxton-abbott-leading-hinojosa-continued-resistance-to-data-centers-2 ### The project states its field period, its sample and its margin of error. > The poll was conducted August 5-13, 2026, among 1200 registered voters in Texas. The margin of error for the survey is +/- 2.83% (3.58% when accounting for the weighted sample). Source (primary_official): https://texaspolitics.utexas.edu/blog/new-ut-texas-politics-project-poll-finds-talarico-leading-paxton-abbott-leading-hinojosa-continued-resistance-to-data-centers-2 ### The project reports how one party's voters split on the question. > Republicans remained closely divided on the subject in August – 45% supported while 43% opposed local data center construction. Source (primary_official): https://texaspolitics.utexas.edu/blog/new-ut-texas-politics-project-poll-finds-talarico-leading-paxton-abbott-leading-hinojosa-continued-resistance-to-data-centers-2 --- # Austin City Council takes up a resolution to write data centers into a land development code that has no definition of one Item 61 on the Austin City Council's regular meeting agenda for August 27th, 2026 asks the council to approve a resolution. It would initiate amendments to Title 25 of the City Code, the Land Development Code. The amendments would establish land uses and site development regulations and development processes for data center use in certain zoning districts. The same item covers business regulations and permit requirements for data center operations. The posted item carries no megawatt or square footage threshold and the agenda records the item as having no fiscal impact. - Topic: data-centers - Decided by: Austin City Council (city) - Where: Travis - Statistical areas: - Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX - Status: pending - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://www.austintexas.gov/council/2026/20260827-reg - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-08-21 · filed: Draft resolution and memo posted as agenda backup - 2026-08-27 · hearing: Regular council meeting carrying the item ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-27 · Admitted as posted. The council has the item in front of it and the draft resolution is public, and no vote is recorded on the agenda page. - 2026-08-30 · Austin's resolution is unchanged. The land development code it would write data centers into still carries no definition of one. - 2026-09-01 · Austin's proposal to define and regulate data centers in its land code remains before the council. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-05 · The resolution to write data centers into Austin's land development code was posted for the August 27th council meeting with two motion sheets filed against it. The city's agenda page does not publish what the council did with it, so the outcome is unconfirmed here. - 2026-09-08 · Austin's resolution to write data centers into a land development code that defines none is still in front of the council. - 2026-09-09 · The Austin resolution to write data centers into the land development code is still waiting on the council. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-16 · The Austin resolution is still live and the land development code still has no definition of a data center to write anything into. Neither half has moved. - 2026-09-19 · The resolution is still before the council, and the land development code it would amend still has no definition of a data center. - 2026-09-23 · Austin's resolution still asks the code to define a thing the code does not define. - 2026-09-26 · Austin's resolution to define a data center in its land development code is still pending before the council. - 2026-09-29 · Austin has not yet written a definition of a data center into its land development code. - 2026-10-02 · Austin's land development code still carries no definition of a data center. - 2026-10-05 · Austin's council still has the resolution to write data centers into its land development code before it. - 2026-10-08 · Austin's council still has the resolution to bring data centers into its land development code before it. - 2026-10-11 · The resolution to define data centers in Austin's land development code is still before the council. - 2026-10-15 · The resolution to define data centers in Austin's land code still has no final vote. - 2026-10-18 · The resolution to give Austin's land code a definition of a data center still awaits a final vote. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-10-24 · Austin's resolution to write a data center definition into its land development code still reads as the council took it up. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The posted item states what the resolution would set in motion. > Approve a resolution initiating amendments to City Code Title 25 (Land Development Code) and other provisions of City Code or regulations necessary to establish land uses, site development regulations, and development processes, for data center use in certain zoning districts and to develop business regulations and permit requirements applicable to data center operations. Source (primary_official): https://www.austintexas.gov/council/2026/20260827-reg ### The agenda records the item as carrying no cost. > Funding: This item has no fiscal impact. Source (primary_official): https://www.austintexas.gov/council/2026/20260827-reg ### The item posts its draft text as public backup before the meeting. > 20260827-061, Agenda Backup: Draft Resolution , PDF, 766 KB, posted 8/21/2026 Source (primary_official): https://www.austintexas.gov/council/2026/20260827-reg --- # PUCT's first five year review of the ERCOT system-wide offer caps closed to comment on September 17th The Public Utility Commission of Texas has opened Project 59550, the quinquennial review of the system-wide offer cap programs under 16 TAC Section 25.509(d). Commission staff filed a memorandum on August 20th, 2026 asking interested parties to answer questions about whether the caps and the emergency pricing program should change. The memorandum states that calendar year 2026 marks the first review period for these programs. It also states that ERCOT has never activated the emergency pricing program since it was adopted. Comments were due by September 17th, 2026, and the project's filing index now stands at 20 filings. - Topic: power-and-the-grid - Decided by: Public Utility Commission of Texas (state-agency) - Where: Statewide - Status: pending - Public access: Comment window open - Comment closes: 2026-09-17 - Take part: https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=59550&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Ascending - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-03-23 · filed: Market Analysis requests a new control number for the review - 2026-08-20 · comment opens: Staff memorandum asking for comments filed as item 2 - 2026-09-17 · comment closes: Comment deadline stated in the staff memorandum ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-28 · Admitted on the staff memorandum filed August 20th and the commission's own calendar entry. The comment window is open and closes September 17th. - 2026-09-01 · The offer-cap review still contains only the opening request and staff memorandum, so its public comment window remains open. - 2026-09-02 · The five year review of the ERCOT system wide offer caps is still open and the staff memo asking for comments is the most recent thing on it. Nothing has been filed in answer yet. - 2026-09-05 · The five year review of the ERCOT offer caps is still open and the comment door has not shut. A reader can still file in it. - 2026-09-08 · The five year review of the ERCOT system-wide offer caps is still taking comments, and the commission's own calendar still carries the September 17th deadline as a public entry. - 2026-09-09 · The comment window is still open, closing September 17th, on the first five year review of the grid's system-wide offer caps. - 2026-09-10 · The five year review of the offer caps is still taking written comment, and the deadline the commission set is still September 17th. The questions staff asked are unchanged, so a party that has not filed still has the same window and the same questions to answer. - 2026-09-11 · The review is still open and the staff memorandum still stands as filed, asking whether the system-wide offer cap programs need updating. Comments are still due September 17th. - 2026-09-12 · The comment window is still open, closing September 17th. - 2026-09-13 · The comment window is still open, closing September 17th. - 2026-09-14 · The staff memorandum is still the live ask on this review and the deadline it set has not moved. Comments on whether the offer caps and the emergency pricing program should change are still due September 17th. - 2026-09-15 · The review is still taking comments and the deadline the staff memorandum set for September 17th has not moved. The questions it put to interested parties stand as filed. - 2026-09-16 · The five year review of the ERCOT offer caps is still open and comments are still due September 17th. That is the nearest dated door in this part of the record. - 2026-09-17 · The five year review of the system-wide offer caps has reached its deadline. September 17th is the last day comments are taken, and the commission's own calendar still carries the same closing date the staff memorandum set. - 2026-09-20 · Comments on the five year review of the system-wide offer caps are no longer being taken. The window the staff memorandum set ran out on September 17th, and what the commission does with what was filed has not been published. - 2026-09-23 · The comment window shut on September 17th and the file filled the same day. Responses came from the grid operator, from generators and retailers, from industrial and municipal buyers, and from Google, which is the first time a hyperscaler has filed in this project. What the commission does with them has not been published. - 2026-09-26 · The comment window closed on September 17th. The commission has not yet acted on the offer cap review. - 2026-09-29 · The comment window closed on September 17th, and the commission's calendar has dropped the deadline now that it has passed. No order on the offer cap review has been posted. - 2026-10-02 · The comment deadline has passed and the commission's calendar no longer lists it. The project holds 20 filings and no staff recommendation on the offer caps has been filed. - 2026-10-05 · The review of ERCOT's system-wide offer caps still sits past its comment date of September 17th, with no decision posted. - 2026-10-08 · No decision on ERCOT's system-wide offer caps has been posted since the comment date of September 17th. - 2026-10-11 · No decision on ERCOT's system-wide offer caps has followed the September 17th comment date. - 2026-10-15 · No decision on ERCOT's system-wide offer caps has followed the comment date. - 2026-10-18 · The review of ERCOT's system-wide offer caps is past its comment date. No decision has followed. - 2026-10-21 · The comment window closed on September 17th. - 2026-10-24 · The offer cap review closed to comment on September 17th and still reads as it did. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The project's official case style names the subject of the review. > QUINQUENNIAL REVIEW OF SYSTEM-WIDE OFFER CAP PROGRAM UNDER 16 TAC 25.509(d) Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=59550&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Ascending ### The rule sets the review on a five year cycle. > Every five years, the Commission will review each of the system-wide offer cap programs to determine whether updates may be warranted. Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59550_2_1676119.PDF ### This is the first time the review has been run. > Calendar year 2026 marks the first review period for these programs. Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59550_2_1676119.PDF ### The memorandum states the day comments are due. > Comments are due by September 17, 2026. Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59550_2_1676119.PDF ### The memorandum states the caps as they stand today. > The current Low System-Wide Offer Cap (LCAP) is $2,000 per MWh for energy offers and $2,000 per MW per hour for ancillary service (AS) offers. The current High System-Wide Offer Cap (HCAP) is $5,000 per MWh for energy offers and $5,000 per MW per hour for ancillary service offers. Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59550_2_1676119.PDF ### The emergency pricing program has never been used since it was adopted. > Since its adoption in December 2023, ERCOT has never activated the EPP. Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59550_2_1676119.PDF ### The memorandum states how a member of the public files. > Comments may be filed through the Interchange on the Commission's website Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59550_2_1676119.PDF ### The project's filing index stands at 20 filings after the deadline. > 20 filing(s). Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=59550&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Ascending ### The commission's market analysis staff filed the memo that opened the comment period. > Staff memo asking for comments Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=59550&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Descending ### The grid operator answered the commission staff's questions in the project. > ERCOT COMMENTS IN RESPONSE TO COMMISSION STAFF QUESTIONS Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=59550&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Descending ### Google filed comments in the review of the system-wide offer caps. > System Wide Offer Cap - Google Comments Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=59550&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Descending --- # PUCT told an Armstrong County AI data center to shed its whole load, then left those conditions in place The Public Utility Commission of Texas approved a net metering arrangement in Docket 59220 on July 24th, 2026. It lets a second AI data center complex share the point of interconnection and the settlement meter of GOODNIT1, a stand-alone wind resource in Armstrong County. The commission attached conditions. The second load has to curtail fully when ERCOT instructs, and it may not be offered into any demand response program the order names. Neither complex is running yet and the commission found ownership of the second load has not transferred to the company expected to operate it. Ensign Infrastructure asked the commission to remove the conditions on rehearing. The commission voted not to put that motion on any open meeting agenda, leaving the order in place. - Topic: data-centers - Decided by: Public Utility Commission of Texas (state-agency) - Where: Armstrong - Statistical areas: - Amarillo, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=59220&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Ascending - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-01-09 · filed: Joint application for net metering approval - 2026-03-26 · filed: Amended application naming Ensign as the large load customer - 2026-05-29 · filed: ERCOT files its study results and recommendations - 2026-07-24 · ordered: Commission order approving the arrangement with conditions - 2026-08-18 · filed: Ensign Infrastructure files a motion for rehearing - 2026-08-31 · decided: Commission votes not to add the rehearing motion to an open meeting agenda ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-28 · Admitted on the commission's own order and the motion for rehearing, both read as filed documents. The arrangement is approved and the conditions stand while the rehearing motion is undecided. - 2026-08-28 · What the commission ordered reaches the second load and names it. An earlier order on the first load carries its own curtailment condition and is a separate proceeding. The two are quoted separately here because the difference is the whole of what the rehearing motion disputes. - 2026-09-01 · The rehearing path moved. Commission Advising records that the commission voted not to place Ensign's motion on an open meeting agenda, so the curtailment conditions remain. - 2026-09-02 · Ensign Infrastructure's motion for rehearing is filed and the commission has since put a ballot memorandum on the docket, which is how the commissioners vote on it. The order telling the data center to shed its whole load stands until they do. - 2026-09-05 · The Armstrong County order still tells the data center to shed its whole load and the conditions are still in place. Nothing has been lifted. - 2026-09-08 · The order letting the Armstrong County data center share a wind farm's interconnection still stands with its load shedding conditions intact. - 2026-09-09 · The Armstrong County data center is still under the order telling it to shed its whole load, and the conditions the commission left in place have not been lifted. - 2026-09-12 · The Armstrong County data center is still under the order telling it to shed its whole load, and the conditions the commission left in place have not been disturbed. The motion for rehearing filed against the order is still pending. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-16 · The Armstrong County load shedding conditions are still in place. The commission has not lifted them and the project still holds them. - 2026-09-19 · The load shedding conditions the commission set are still on that data center and have not been lifted. - 2026-09-23 · The conditions the commission put on the Armstrong County load are still attached to it. - 2026-09-26 · The conditions the commission placed on the Armstrong County load, the order to shed it whole among them, are still in place. - 2026-09-29 · The conditions on the Crusoe Two load in Armstrong County stand as the commission ordered them, and no new order has been filed. - 2026-10-02 · The commission's conditions on the Armstrong County load stand, and no newer order has been filed. - 2026-10-05 · The commission's conditions telling the Armstrong County data center to shed its whole load still stand. - 2026-10-08 · The commission's conditions requiring the Armstrong County data center to shed its whole load are still in force. - 2026-10-11 · The conditions requiring the Armstrong County data center to shed its whole load remain in force. - 2026-10-15 · The conditions telling the Armstrong County data center to shed its whole load remain in place. - 2026-10-18 · The order telling the Armstrong County data center to shed its whole load still carries those conditions. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · The commission's order telling the Armstrong County data center to shed its whole load still carries the same conditions. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The docket's official case style names the three applicants and what they asked for. > APPLICATION OF CRUSOE ENERGY SYSTEMS LLC, FGE GOODNIGHT I, LLC AND ENSIGN INFRASTRUCTURE LLC FOR APPROVAL OF A NET METERING ARRANGEMENT Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=59220&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Ascending ### The commission approved the arrangement and attached conditions to it. > The Commission approves the net metering arrangement, subject to the conditions imposed by this Order. Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59220_69_1668205.PDF ### The commission's findings give the generator's capacity and the county it stands in. > Goodnight owns and operates GOODNIT1, a stand-alone 265.5-MW wind generation resource in Armstrong County. Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59220_69_1668205.PDF ### The commission found Ensign is the intended customer the applicants say will take over both loads once they are built. > Ensign is the intended large load customer that the applicants state will take over and operate both the Crusoe One and Crusoe Two loads upon their completion and energization. Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59220_69_1668205.PDF ### The commission's findings give both data center complexes their size and put both in Armstrong County. > Crusoe is the current owner and developer of two AI data-center complexes located in Armstrong County: a 265-MW data center complex referred to as "the Crusoe One Load" and a 260-MW AI data-center complex referred to as "the Crusoe Two Load." Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59220_69_1668205.PDF ### The commission found both loads sit at the generator's own point of interconnection. > the Crusoe One and Crusoe Two loads will be co-located with GOODNIT1 and interconnected at the GOODNIT1 point of interconnection Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59220_69_1668205.PDF ### The commission gave its reason for weighing both loads together rather than only the new one. > it is appropriate to consider both loads when evaluating the net metering arrangement for the Crusoe Two load. Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59220_69_1668205.PDF ### The order's first condition requires the second load to come off entirely when ERCOT instructs it. > Crusoe and Ensign must ensure that the Crusoe Two Load fully curtails its consumption in the manner directed by ERCOT Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59220_69_1668205.PDF ### The order sets a 30 minute window and lets the operators cut it to 10 minutes by telling ERCOT in writing they can. > Crusoe or Ensign may reduce the required time period from 30 minutes to 10 minutes by providing written confirmation to ERCOT of the Crusoe Two Load's capability to curtail within 10 minutes. Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59220_69_1668205.PDF ### ERCOT gives notice ahead of the instruction where it can, as a floor rather than a fixed period. > When practicable, ERCOT must provide at least 60 minutes of notice in advance Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59220_69_1668205.PDF ### The order bars the second load from every demand response program it names. > Crusoe and Ensign may not allow the Crusoe Two Load to be offered into or to participate in any ERCOT or transmission or distribution service provider (TDSP) demand response product, program, or service, including without limitation any Ancillary Service, ERCOT's Emergency Response Service, any ERCOT-procured contract for capacity, or any TDSP load management program. Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59220_69_1668205.PDF ### The order records the figure Ensign and Crusoe argued the two conditions add up to. It is their contention and the commission does not adopt it. > it would result in a total curtailment of 525.5 MW Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59220_69_1668205.PDF ### Commission staff and ERCOT answered that a second wind resource which has not been built should be left out of the case. > GOODNIT2 does not yet exist, is not a part of the application, and should not be considered in this proceeding. Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59220_69_1668205.PDF ### The commission had imposed the same conditions once before, in the case the order calls the only other one to reach a final decision. > the Commission also imposed identical conditions in Docket No. 58872 Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59220_69_1668205.PDF ### The order refused every request it did not expressly grant. > The Commission denies all other motions and any other requests for general or specific relief, if not expressly granted. Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59220_69_1668205.PDF ### The commission found the second load has not changed hands and that Ensign may yet not be the customer. > ownership and control of the Crusoe Two Load has not yet transferred to Ensign, making it less than certain that Ensign will replace Crusoe as the large load customer Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59220_69_1668205.PDF ### The company that will operate the load says the order goes beyond what the statute allows. > exceeds what is required or authorized under PURA § 39.169 Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59220_73_1675222.PDF ### The motion says the order left the central legal question unanswered. > Nor did the Order directly address the critical legal and policy issue of first impression that underlies this case Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59220_73_1675222.PDF ### The motion states how it characterizes the order. > the Order is excessive, arbitrary and capricious, unsupported by the evidentiary record, and not authorized by the language of PURA. Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59220_73_1675222.PDF ### The motion argues the duty should be sized to the existing generator the statute is about. > the curtailment obligation should be calibrated to the size of the existing generator that is subject to PURA Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59220_73_1675222.PDF ### The motion names the day it was served. > was served on all parties of record in this proceeding on this 18th day of August, 2026 Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59220_73_1675222.PDF ### The motion asks the commission to delete the conditions rather than shrink them. > Ensign respectfully asks the Commission to grant rehearing and amend its Order to find that no conditions are necessary on Crusoe Two. Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59220_73_1675222.PDF ### The motion names exactly what it is challenging. > Ensign respectfully raises points of error to Findings of Fact 57 and 58, Conclusions of Law 9 and 10, and Ordering Paragraph 1. Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59220_73_1675222.PDF ### The commission has a ballot memorandum on the docket after the motion for rehearing. > BALLOT MEMORANDUM Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=59220&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Descending --- # Senate Economic Development holds its reset hearing on AI and the Texas workforce on September 22nd The Senate Committee on Economic Development carries an interim charge on preparing the Texas workforce for artificial intelligence. The charge directs the committee to study what AI does to the Texas workforce and what that means for the state's economic competitiveness. It also directs the committee to look at workforce resiliency. Educational pathways set against evolving employer needs and opportunities for upskilling are named in the same charge. The hearing the committee had set for Thursday, September 3rd, 2026 is canceled. The committee reset it for Tuesday, September 22nd, 2026 in hearing room E1.016 at the Capitol as a public hearing. A witness has published testimony saying it was presented to the committee that day. The committee has published no report or recommendation from it. Angela Paxton chairs the committee and Kevin Sparks is vice chair. - Topic: state-policy - Decided by: Texas Senate Committee on Economic Development (legislature) - Where: Statewide - Status: pending - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://capitol.texas.gov/Committees/MeetingsUpcoming.aspx?Chamber=S - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-09-03 · hearing: Canceled - 2026-09-22 · hearing: Public hearing, hearing room E1.016 ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-29 · Admitted. The committee's own page carries the interim charge on preparing the Texas workforce for artificial intelligence. The Legislature's upcoming meetings listing sets the hearing for September 3rd in hearing room E1.016. The listing marks it a public hearing rather than a work session. - 2026-08-30 · The September 3rd hearing on artificial intelligence and the Texas workforce is still on the calendar, with nothing filed against it since. - 2026-09-02 · The September 3rd hearing is canceled and the Legislature's own listing carries the word on its row. The same listing now sets the committee for September 22nd, 2026 in the same hearing room. The listing points to a notice for the reason, at a path this project does not fetch, so no reason is published here. - 2026-09-03 · Today is the day the canceled hearing would have been held and the Legislature's listing still carries the cancellation on its own row. The committee stands for Tuesday, September 22nd, 2026 in hearing room E1.016, and the listing marks it a public hearing. The row for September 3rd no longer prints the type and the room it printed before the cancellation, so the record now takes those from the September 22nd row. - 2026-09-05 · The reset hearing is now carried on the Legislature's upcoming meetings listing for the Economic Development committee, in the same hearing room the canceled one was set for. The door a reader can walk through is the later date. - 2026-09-08 · Senate Economic Development still shows the canceled sitting and the reset date on the same committee listing, and no notice for the reset has been posted. - 2026-09-09 · The canceled September 3rd hearing on artificial intelligence and the Texas workforce has dropped off the chamber's list of upcoming meetings, which carries only what is still ahead. The committee's own page still shows the charge and the later date it moved to. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. Still open, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. Still open, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-15 · The chamber's upcoming meetings listing carries only what is still ahead, so the canceled September 3rd sitting has come off it. The record now takes that row from the committee's own meetings page, which still marks it canceled. The September 22nd public hearing stands in hearing room E1.016 on the same two listings. - 2026-09-16 · The Senate Economic Development hearing on artificial intelligence and the Texas workforce is still set for September 22nd after the cancellation. The reset date has held. - 2026-09-17 · The reset hearing on artificial intelligence and the Texas workforce is still set for September 22nd in hearing room E1.016. Nothing has been posted that would move it a second time. - 2026-09-18 · The reset date is holding. The Legislature's own upcoming meetings listing still carries the committee for later this month in the same Capitol hearing room and still marks it a public hearing. Nothing has been posted that cancels it a second time. - 2026-09-19 · The hearing on artificial intelligence and the Texas workforce is still set for its new date, and the cancellation has not been repeated. - 2026-09-20 · The committee's hearing on artificial intelligence and the Texas workforce still stands at the reset date. Nothing on the Senate's own meetings listing has moved it a second time. - 2026-09-21 · The interim charge on AI and the Texas workforce is still live and the committee has posted no replacement date for the hearing it called off. A reader watching for a rescheduled notice has nothing new to watch yet. - 2026-09-24 · The reset hearing went ahead on September 22nd. A witness has published testimony it says was presented to the committee that day. What the committee does with the charge now waits on its interim report, and nothing has been published from the hearing itself. - 2026-09-27 · The committee's reset hearing on artificial intelligence and the workforce still stands on its posted date, with no published report after it. - 2026-09-30 · The committee's page still shows the reset hearing on artificial intelligence and the workforce, and no report from it has been posted. - 2026-10-03 · The reset hearing has been held. The committee's own meetings list carries the September 22nd sitting, and a witness's published testimony says it was given to the committee that day. No report from the hearing has been posted. - 2026-10-06 · Senate Economic Development's hearing on AI still stands on the committee's record, with no report out of it yet. - 2026-10-09 · The reset hearing on AI and the workforce has dropped off the committee's upcoming list, as a held hearing does. No report from it has been posted. - 2026-10-12 · The workforce hearing date on AI has passed. The committee has posted no report from it. - 2026-10-15 · The committee has posted no report from its workforce hearing on AI. - 2026-10-18 · The Senate committee's hearing on AI and the Texas workforce has been held. No report from it is posted. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-10-24 · The record of Senate Economic Development's hearing on AI and the Texas workforce still reads as before. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The committee's interim charge directs it to study what artificial intelligence does to the Texas workforce. > Preparing the Texas Workforce for AI (Artificial Intelligence): Study the impact of AI on the Texas workforce and its implications for economic competitiveness. Source (primary_official): https://senate.texas.gov/cmte.php?c=525 ### The same charge names what else the committee is to evaluate. > Evaluate strategies to enhance workforce resiliency, align educational pathways with evolving employer needs, and promote private-sector-led innovation. Source (primary_official): https://senate.texas.gov/cmte.php?c=525 ### The charge asks the committee to identify upskilling opportunities and to make recommendations. > Identify opportunities for upskilling and the responsible adoption of emerging technologies to maximize employment opportunities. Source (primary_official): https://senate.texas.gov/cmte.php?c=525 ### The Legislature's own upcoming meetings listing gives the September 22nd meeting its type and its room. > Tuesday, September 22, 2026 9:00 AM Economic Development Type: Public Hearing Location: E1.016 (Hearing Room) Source (primary_official): https://capitol.texas.gov/Committees/MeetingsUpcoming.aspx?Chamber=S ### The committee's own page names who chairs it. > CHAIR Angela Paxton VICE-CHAIR Kevin Sparks Source (primary_official): https://senate.texas.gov/cmte.php?c=525 ### The committee's own meetings listing marks the September 3rd sitting canceled. > September 3, 2026 9:00 AM (Canceled/see notice) Source (primary_official): https://capitol.texas.gov/Committees/MeetingsByCmte.aspx?Leg=89&Chamber=S&CmteCode=C525 ### The committee's own meetings listing carries the September 22nd sitting. > September 22, 2026 9:00 AM Source (primary_official): https://capitol.texas.gov/Committees/MeetingsByCmte.aspx?Leg=89&Chamber=S&CmteCode=C525 ### A witness's own published testimony says it was presented to the committee on the reset date. > A version of the following testimony was presented to the Texas Senate Committee on Economic Development on September 22, 2026. Source (primary_corporate): https://reason.org/testimony/preparing-the-texas-workforce-for-artificial-intelligence/ --- # Governor orders state agencies to pause funding for Flock plate reader cameras The Governor's office ordered every Texas state agency to pause funding for Flock automated license plate reader cameras, and confirmed the order on August 28th, 2026. The money behind the state's share of that network is a one dollar auto insurance fee the Legislature passed unanimously in 2023 against catalytic converter theft. The Motor Vehicle Crime Prevention Authority turned part of that fee into cameras reaching from El Paso to the Louisiana border. The order reached the public as a spokesperson's statement to a newsroom, and the Governor's own news index carries no release on it. The authority that wrote the grants listed a board meeting for October 13th, 2026 and has since taken it off its page, which now shows no future meeting at all. - Topic: surveillance-and-policing - Decided by: Office of the Texas Governor (governor) - Where: Statewide - Status: decided - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://www.txdmv.gov/about-us/MVCPA - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-08-28 · ordered: The Governor's office confirmed the order ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-30 · Admitted to the record. The order stands as confirmed by the Governor's office, and the authority that wrote the grants still lists a board meeting for October 13th. - 2026-09-01 · The governor's pause on state-agency funding for Flock plate-reader cameras remains the standing directive. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-05 · The pause on state funding for plate reader cameras still stands and no agency has been released from it. - 2026-09-08 · The Governor's pause on state agency funding for Flock plate readers is still in force, and no agency has published a resumption. - 2026-09-09 · State agencies are still barred from funding Flock plate reader cameras under the Governor's order, which has not been withdrawn. - 2026-09-12 · The October board meeting the authority had posted is off its page, which now lists no future meeting at all. The newest one on it is dated July 24th. The pause on state agency funding for the cameras is still in force and no agency has published a resumption. - 2026-09-13 · State agencies are still barred from spending on Flock plate reader cameras, and nothing has been published withdrawing the direction. - 2026-09-16 · The pause on state funding for plate reader cameras is still the Governor's standing order. No agency has been released from it. - 2026-09-19 · The funding pause on plate reader cameras is still in force for state agencies. - 2026-09-23 · The Governor's pause on state funding for those cameras is still in force. - 2026-09-26 · The Governor's pause on state funding for Flock cameras is still in force. - 2026-09-29 · State agencies are still under the Governor's order to pause funding for Flock plate reader cameras. - 2026-10-02 · The Governor's order pausing state funding for Flock plate reader cameras is still in force. - 2026-10-05 · The Governor's order pausing state funding for Flock plate reader cameras still stands. - 2026-10-08 · State funding for Flock plate reader cameras is still paused under the Governor's order. - 2026-10-11 · State funding for Flock plate reader cameras is still paused under the Governor's order. - 2026-10-15 · The Governor's pause on state money for Flock plate reader cameras still stands. - 2026-10-18 · The Governor's pause on state funding for Flock plate reader cameras still stands as ordered. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · The Governor's order pausing state money for Flock plate reader cameras is still in effect. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The Governor ordered all state agencies to pause funding for Flock cameras. > Gov. Greg Abbott has ordered all state agencies to pause funding for Flock cameras as scrutiny over the AI-powered surveillance devices has mounted. Source (journalism): https://www.texastribune.org/2026/08/28/texas-greg-abbott-flock-cameras-order-state-money/ ### The Governor's office said state funds can't be used for the cameras. > To the extent that cities get any funding for those cameras, most of it comes from the federal government. To the extent any funding comes from Texas agencies, those agencies are clarifying that those funds cannot be used for Flock cameras Source (journalism): https://www.texastribune.org/2026/08/28/texas-greg-abbott-flock-cameras-order-state-money/ ### The Legislature passed a one dollar auto insurance fee in 2023 to combat catalytic converter theft. > In 2023, the Texas Legislature unanimously passed a law raising auto insurance costs for Texans by $1 to combat rampant catalytic converter theft. Source (journalism): https://www.texastribune.org/2026/08/28/texas-flock-cameras-auto-insurance-fee-mvcpa-grants/ ### At least $30 million of the fee went to the state's camera network, from El Paso to the Louisiana border. > Three years later, a little-known state agency has devoted at least $30 million of that fee toward supercharging the state's Flock surveillance network, placing cameras along highways and streets from El Paso to the Louisiana border Source (journalism): https://www.texastribune.org/2026/08/28/texas-flock-cameras-auto-insurance-fee-mvcpa-grants/ ### The authority turned the fee into at least 3,200 Flock cameras. > has turned the $1 fee hike into at least 3,200 Flock cameras. Source (journalism): https://www.texastribune.org/2026/08/28/texas-flock-cameras-auto-insurance-fee-mvcpa-grants/ ### Plate reader data was searched 62,000 times in 2025, clearing about 1,660 catalytic converter theft cases. > Data from the license plate readers, known in law enforcement as LPRs, was searched 62,000 times in 2025, leading to about 1,660 cleared catalytic converter theft cases, a report from the authority said. Source (journalism): https://www.texastribune.org/2026/08/28/texas-flock-cameras-auto-insurance-fee-mvcpa-grants/ ### The authority's meetings page lists no upcoming board meeting, and the newest one on it is dated July 24th, 2026. > July 24, 2026 - MVCPA Board Meeting Source (primary_official): https://www.txdmv.gov/about-us/MVCPA --- # Utility commission approves a 765 kilovolt line from Somervell County to Howard County The Public Utility Commission of Texas approved an amendment to Oncor's certificate of convenience and necessity for a new 765 kilovolt transmission line. The company's own project page records the decision as approved on August 28th, 2026. The line runs from a proposed switch about 3 miles north of Glen Rose in Somervell County to an existing switch about 4.5 miles west of Forsan in Howard County. Oncor filed the application on February 19th, 2026 under Docket No. 59315. It states the route will run approximately 235 to 270 miles depending on the route chosen, and is planned for completion in 2029. It is a voltage class new to the Texas grid. - Topic: power-and-the-grid - Decided by: Public Utility Commission of Texas (state-agency) - Where: Somervell, Howard - Statistical areas: - Big Spring, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Closed - Take part: https://www.oncor.com/content/oncorwww/us/en/home/about-us/transmission-systems/current-transmission-line-projects/dinosaur-to-longshore-765-kv-transmission-line-project.html - Last checked: 2026-10-22 ## Dates - 2026-02-19 · filed: Oncor filed the application - 2026-08-28 · decided: The company's project page records the approval ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-30 · Admitted to the record. The company's own project page carries the approval and the route between the two named counties. - 2026-09-02 · The line is still carried among the approved projects on the utility's own list of current transmission line projects. - 2026-09-05 · The approved 765 kilovolt line from Somervell County to Howard County still stands as certificated and its route is unchanged. - 2026-09-08 · The approved 765 kilovolt line from Somervell County to Howard County still stands as ordered, and the route has not been reopened. - 2026-09-09 · The 765 kilovolt line from Somervell County to Howard County is still approved, and the utility's own project page still describes it as it did. - 2026-09-12 · The 765 kilovolt line from Somervell County to Howard County is still approved, and the utility's own project page still describes the route as it did. - 2026-09-13 · The line from Somervell County to Howard County is still approved. The utility's project page still carries the same route description and the same decision date. - 2026-09-16 · The approved line from Somervell County to Howard County is still approved, and the utility's own project page still describes it the same way. No rehearing has been granted. - 2026-09-19 · The approval stands and the commission has taken nothing further on the route. - 2026-09-23 · The approved route from Somervell County to Howard County is unchanged, and the company's own project page still records the approval. - 2026-09-26 · The approval stands, and Oncor's own project page now plans the line for completion in 2029. The same page said 2028 when this line was admitted. Nothing on the page says why the year moved. - 2026-09-29 · Oncor's project page still describes the approved line from Somervell County to Howard County, with its planned completion unchanged since the last reading. - 2026-10-02 · The commission's approval of the line is unconfirmed this run. Oncor's project page did not answer and the order was not re-read. - 2026-10-03 · The commission's approval of the line is still unconfirmed. Oncor's project page did not answer again and the order was not re-read. - 2026-10-04 · The commission's approval of the line is still unconfirmed. Oncor's project page did not answer again and the order was not re-read. - 2026-10-05 · The commission's own order on Docket No. 59315 still amends Oncor's certificate for the line. A groundwater district and two landowner groups have since asked the commission to rehear it. - 2026-10-08 · The two commission filings in the docket and the Tribune's account still read as before. Oncor's own project page is unconfirmed because it bars automated readers. - 2026-10-11 · Both commission filings still carry the approved route from Somervell County to Howard County. Oncor's project page stays out of reach. - 2026-10-15 · Both commission filings still carry the approved route from Somervell County to Howard County. Oncor's project page is unconfirmed. - 2026-10-18 · The commission filing and the Tribune's account still carry the approved route from Somervell County to Howard County. Oncor's project page is unconfirmed. - 2026-10-22 · The commission filing and the Tribune's account still carry the approved route from Somervell County to Howard County. Oncor's project page stays unconfirmed. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The company's project page records the commission's decision as approved on August 28th, 2026. > PUC Decision – Approved on August 28, 2026. Source (primary_corporate): https://www.oncor.com/content/oncorwww/us/en/home/about-us/transmission-systems/current-transmission-line-projects/dinosaur-to-longshore-765-kv-transmission-line-project.html ### The line runs from a switch near Glen Rose in Somervell County to a switch near Forsan in Howard County. > it proposes to construct a new 765 kilovolt (kV) transmission line from Oncor's proposed Dinosaur Switch, located approximately 3 miles north of the City of Glen Rose in Somervell County, to Oncor's existing Longshore Switch located approximately 4.5 miles west of the City of Forsan in Howard County, Texas (Project). Source (primary_corporate): https://www.oncor.com/content/oncorwww/us/en/home/about-us/transmission-systems/current-transmission-line-projects/dinosaur-to-longshore-765-kv-transmission-line-project.html ### The route runs approximately 235 to 270 miles and is planned for completion in 2029. > The proposed transmission line project will be approximately 235-270 miles long depending on the route if approved by the Public Utility Commission of Texas (“PUCT”). The Proposed Transmission Line Project is currently planned for completion in 2029. Source (primary_corporate): https://www.oncor.com/content/oncorwww/us/en/home/about-us/transmission-systems/current-transmission-line-projects/dinosaur-to-longshore-765-kv-transmission-line-project.html ### Oncor filed the application on February 19th, 2026 under Docket No. 59315. > On February 19, 2026 Oncor filed an Application at the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) under Docket No. 59315 to construct and operate the proposed project. Source (primary_corporate): https://www.oncor.com/content/oncorwww/us/en/home/about-us/transmission-systems/current-transmission-line-projects/dinosaur-to-longshore-765-kv-transmission-line-project.html ### The commission authorized more than 400 miles of transmission line at the same sitting. > the Public Utility Commission of Texas has authorized the buildout of more than 400 miles of transmission lines to deliver electricity to the power-starved oil and gas and industrial manufacturing industries. Source (journalism): https://www.texastribune.org/2026/08/28/transmission-lines-texas-energy/ ### The commission's order adopts the proposal for decision in part and amends Oncor's certificate to include the new line. > The Commission adopts the proposal for decision in part and rejects it in part, including findings of fact and conclusions of law, and amends Oncor's CCN number 30043 to include the construction and operation of the proposed transmission facilities Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59315_5819_1678289.PDF ### The Middle Trinity Groundwater Conservation District filed a motion asking the commission to rehear the order. > The Middle Trinity Groundwater Conservation District (the "District") files this Motion for Rehearing Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59315_5840_1685751.PDF --- # State technology agency publishes how it is implementing the four AI laws of the 89th Legislature The Texas Department of Information Resources published an account on August 14th, 2026 of how it is implementing the artificial intelligence laws passed by the 89th Legislature. Senate Bill 1964, House Bill 3512 and House Bill 149 are named in it. One of them puts an annual artificial intelligence awareness training obligation on certain state and local government employees and officials, and the agency offers a free training video. Another established the state's AI governance framework and directed the agency to develop a public sector sandbox. A third requires governmental entities to disclose their use of AI and creates the Texas Artificial Intelligence Council. - Topic: state-policy - Decided by: Texas Department of Information Resources (state-agency) - Where: Statewide - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://dir.texas.gov/news/ai-texas-dir-implementation-laws-89th-legislature - Last checked: 2026-09-29 ## Dates - 2026-08-14 · effective: The agency published its implementation account ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-30 · Admitted to the record. The agency's account of what each law requires of it stands as published. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-05 · The state technology agency's account of how it is implementing the four AI laws is still published and unchanged. - 2026-09-08 · The state technology agency's account of how it is implementing the four AI laws is still posted as written. - 2026-09-09 · The state technology agency's account of how it is implementing the four AI laws of the last session is still the published account, and it has not been revised. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-16 · The state technology agency's account of how it is implementing the four AI laws is still published and still unamended. Nothing has been added to it. - 2026-09-19 · The agency's account of how it is implementing the four laws is still the published one and has not been revised. - 2026-09-23 · The technology agency's account of how it is implementing the four laws is unchanged. - 2026-09-26 · The technology agency's account of how it is implementing the four laws still reads as published. - 2026-09-29 · The technology agency's published account of how it carries out the four AI laws reads as it did. - 2026-10-02 · The technology agency's account of how it is carrying out the four AI laws is unconfirmed this run. Its site bars automated readers. - 2026-10-03 · The technology agency's account of how it is carrying out the four AI laws is still unconfirmed. Its site bars automated readers. - 2026-10-04 · The technology agency's account of how it is carrying out the four AI laws is still unconfirmed. Its site bars automated readers. - 2026-10-05 · The technology agency's account of how it is carrying out the four AI laws is still unconfirmed. Its site bars automated readers. - 2026-10-06 · The technology agency's account of how it carries out the four AI laws is still unconfirmed. Its site bars automated readers. - 2026-10-07 · The state technology agency's page on carrying out the AI laws is still unconfirmed. Its site bars automated readers. - 2026-10-08 · The state technology agency's page on carrying out the AI laws remains unconfirmed. Its site still bars automated readers. - 2026-10-09 · The state technology agency's page on carrying out the AI laws remains unconfirmed. Its site still bars automated readers. - 2026-10-10 · The state technology agency's page on carrying out the AI laws stays unconfirmed, since its site bars automated readers. - 2026-10-24 · The state technology agency's account of how it is carrying out the four AI laws is unconfirmed today, since its page refused the request. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### One of the laws requires annual AI awareness training for certain state and local government employees and officials. > House Bill 3512 requires annual AI Awareness Training for certain state and local government employees and officials. Source (primary_official): https://dir.texas.gov/news/ai-texas-dir-implementation-laws-89th-legislature ### Senate Bill 1964 established the state's AI governance framework and directed the agency to develop a public sector sandbox. > Senate Bill 1964 established Texas' AI governance framework and directed DIR to develop the Public Sector AI Sandbox and adopt rules for government use of heightened-scrutiny AI. Source (primary_official): https://dir.texas.gov/news/ai-texas-dir-implementation-laws-89th-legislature ### House Bill 149 requires governmental entities to disclose their use of AI and creates the Texas Artificial Intelligence Council. > House Bill 149 requires disclosures of use of AI by governmental entities, creating consumer protections, the Texas Artificial Intelligence Council, and a regulatory sandbox while expanding the Information Resources Deployment Review to include agency AI system inventories. Source (primary_official): https://dir.texas.gov/news/ai-texas-dir-implementation-laws-89th-legislature --- # Grid operator weighs a year's grace for data center cooling equipment on ride-through rules A revision request pending at the Electric Reliability Council of Texas concerns the grid's ride-through requirements. It would give a large computational load up to 365 days after its in-service date to comply. It applies where the cooling load can't meet the standard on the day it starts. The posting names the reason as design and manufacturing limits, including vendors still adapting chiller and variable frequency drive equipment to the applicable standards. Ride-through is the requirement that keeps a large load on the system through a voltage dip rather than dropping off all at once. The request was posted on July 21st, 2026 and is still pending, with the reliability and operations subcommittee named as its next group. - Topic: power-and-the-grid - Decided by: Electric Reliability Council of Texas (state-agency) - Where: Statewide - Status: pending - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://www.ercot.com/mktrules/issues/NOGRR289 - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-07-21 · filed: The revision request was posted ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-08-30 · Admitted to the record. The request is still pending, with the reliability and operations subcommittee named as its next group. - 2026-09-01 · ERCOT's proposed grace period for data-center cooling equipment remains under consideration. - 2026-09-02 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-05 · The grid operator is still weighing the grace period for data center cooling equipment under the ride-through rules. Nothing is adopted. - 2026-09-08 · The grid operator is still weighing a grace period for data center cooling equipment under the ride-through rules, with nothing adopted. - 2026-09-09 · The grace period on ride-through rules for data center cooling equipment is still a proposal in front of the grid operator. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-16 · The question of a year's grace for data center cooling equipment under the ride-through rules is still before the grid operator. No decision has been posted. - 2026-09-19 · The grace period for cooling equipment is still under consideration, so the ride-through rule still reaches that equipment today. - 2026-09-23 · The grace period for cooling equipment is still a proposal the grid operator is weighing. - 2026-09-26 · The year's grace for data center cooling equipment is still a proposal before the grid operator. - 2026-09-29 · A year's grace for data center cooling equipment under the ride-through rules is still only proposed at the grid operator. - 2026-10-02 · The grid operator's year of grace for data center cooling equipment under the ride-through rules is still a proposal. - 2026-10-05 · ERCOT is still weighing the year's grace for data center cooling equipment under the ride-through rules, with no decision posted. - 2026-10-08 · ERCOT has still not decided whether data center cooling equipment gets a year's grace under the ride-through rules. - 2026-10-11 · ERCOT has still not decided whether cooling equipment at data centers gets a grace year on ride-through rules. - 2026-10-15 · ERCOT still has not decided whether data center cooling equipment gets a grace year on ride-through rules. - 2026-10-18 · ERCOT still has the grace year for data center cooling equipment under consideration, with no decision. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-10-24 · The grid operator's proposed year of grace for data center cooling equipment on ride-through rules still reads as proposed. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The request would allow ride-through compliance up to 365 days after the in-service date where cooling load can't meet it. > This Nodal Operating Guide Revision Request (NOGRR) permits a Large Computational Load (LCL) to achieve compliance with the applicable ride-through requirements within 365 days after its in-service date where the LCL's cooling load is unable to satisfy such requirements as of the in-service date due to ongoing design and manufacturing limitations, including constraints associated with vendors' continued adaptation of chiller and Variable Frequency Drive (VFD) equipment to the applicable standards. Source (primary_official): https://www.ercot.com/mktrules/issues/NOGRR289 ### The request is titled for an extension to cooling load ride-through compliance. > Extension for LCL Cooling Load Ride-Through Compliance Source (primary_official): https://www.ercot.com/mktrules/issues/NOGRR289 --- # Austin City Council takes up a resolution to amend the land code for data centers A resolution on the Austin City Council's August 27th, 2026 agenda directs staff to begin amendments to City Code Title 25, the Land Development Code. The amendments would establish land uses, site development regulations and development processes for data center use in certain zoning districts. It also directs work on business regulations and permit requirements for data center operations. The item carries file number 26-2329 and no fiscal impact. The city's own legislative record still shows the item as agenda ready with no vote recorded against it, so nothing here says the council has acted. - Topic: data-centers - Decided by: Austin City Council (city) - Where: Travis - Statistical areas: - Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX - Status: pending - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://www.austintexas.gov/council/2026/20260827-reg - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-08-05 · filed: Item introduced, per the city's legislative record - 2026-08-27 · hearing: Regular council meeting the item was agendaed for ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-03 · Admitted. The resolution directing staff to begin land development code amendments for data center use is on the council's August 27th, 2026 agenda with file number 26-2329. The city's own legislative record still carries the item as agenda ready with no date of passage, so nothing here says the council has acted. - 2026-09-07 · The city's legislative record still carries file number 26-2329 as agenda ready with no date of passage. Nothing here says the council has voted, so the land development code still says what it said before the resolution was filed. - 2026-09-10 · The land code amendment is still down for the council to take up and no date has been set for it. The staff work behind it has not been withdrawn and nothing has been posted that would move it. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-16 · The Austin resolution to amend the land code for data centers is still awaiting council action. It has not been withdrawn. - 2026-09-19 · The resolution to amend the land code for data centers is still before the council. - 2026-09-23 · The land code amendment Austin asked for has not come back to the council. - 2026-09-26 · The land code amendment for data centers has not come back to the Austin council. - 2026-09-29 · The resolution to amend Austin's land code for data centers has not returned to the council. - 2026-10-02 · Austin's resolution to amend its land code for data centers has not come back before the council. - 2026-10-05 · Austin's council still has the land code amendment for data centers before it, with no final vote posted. - 2026-10-08 · Austin's land code amendment for data centers still has no final council vote. - 2026-10-11 · Austin's land code amendment for data centers still has no final council vote. - 2026-10-15 · Austin's land code amendment for data centers still has no final council vote. - 2026-10-18 · Austin's land code amendment for data centers still has no final council vote. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-10-24 · Austin's resolution to amend the land code for data centers still reads as the council took it up. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The resolution directs staff to begin land development code amendments establishing where a data center may operate. > Approve a resolution initiating amendments to City Code Title 25 (Land Development Code) and other provisions of City Code or regulations necessary to establish land uses, site development regulations, and development processes, for data center use in certain zoning districts and to develop business regulations and permit requirements applicable to data center operations. Source (primary_official): https://www.austintexas.gov/council/2026/20260827-reg ### The same item carries no fiscal impact on the city's own record. > Funding: This item has no fiscal impact. Source (primary_official): https://webapi.legistar.com/v1/austintexas/matters/28845 ### The city's legislative record gives the item's file number. > "MatterFile":"26-2329" Source (primary_official): https://webapi.legistar.com/v1/austintexas/matters/28845 ### The city's legislative record still carries the item as agenda ready with no date of passage. > "MatterStatusName":"Agenda Ready" Source (primary_official): https://webapi.legistar.com/v1/austintexas/matters/28845 --- # Dallas Public Safety Committee sets a briefing on the police Flock plate reader program The Dallas City Council Public Safety Committee has put an update on the Dallas Police Department's Flock automated license plate reader program on its September 8th, 2026 agenda. The item was introduced August 13th, 2026 and is a briefing rather than an action item. The chief of police is listed as a presenter alongside a major and a sergeant from operational technology. A briefing is where a council committee is told what a system is doing. It is the point at which a resident can hear the department describe the program in a public room. - Topic: surveillance-and-policing - Decided by: Dallas City Council Public Safety Committee (city) - Where: Dallas - Statistical areas: - Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX - Status: open - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://webapi.legistar.com/v1/cityofdallas/matters/25839 - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-08-13 · filed: Briefing item introduced, per the city's legislative record - 2026-09-08 · hearing: Public Safety Committee meeting the briefing is set for ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-03 · Admitted. The Public Safety Committee's September 8th, 2026 agenda carries an update on the police department's Flock automated license plate reader program. The city's record marks it a briefing rather than an action item and lists the chief of police among the presenters. - 2026-09-04 · The Dallas Public Safety Committee's briefing on the police department's Flock plate reader program is still set for September 8th, 2026. The city's own record still lists it as a briefing rather than as an action item. The chief of police is still the named presenter. - 2026-09-05 · The Dallas committee still has the plate reader briefing on its calendar. It has not been heard. - 2026-09-07 · The plate reader briefing is still on the Public Safety Committee's calendar for September 8th, 2026. The city's record still lists it as a briefing rather than as an action item. It has not been heard. - 2026-09-08 · The Dallas Public Safety Committee still has the police plate reader briefing on its calendar, and no briefing document has been posted. - 2026-09-11 · The city's own record still carries the plate reader item as a briefing rather than an action the committee votes on. Nothing has been added to the item, and the presenters listed against it are unchanged. - 2026-09-13 · The committee's own record still files the plate reader update as a briefing rather than as an action it votes on. Its agenda date has now passed with nothing added to the item. - 2026-09-16 · The Dallas briefing on the police plate reader program is still set and the committee has not moved it. The program is unchanged in the meantime. - 2026-09-19 · The briefing on the police plate reader program is still set and the committee has heard nothing yet. - 2026-09-23 · The Dallas briefing on the plate reader program is still set and the committee has heard nothing yet. - 2026-09-26 · The Dallas committee's briefing on the police plate reader program is still set, and no briefing record has been posted. - 2026-09-29 · The Dallas Public Safety Committee has posted no record of the briefing on police use of Flock plate readers. - 2026-10-02 · No record of the Public Safety Committee's Flock briefing has been posted. - 2026-10-05 · The Dallas Public Safety Committee briefing on the police Flock program still stands as set. - 2026-10-08 · The Dallas Public Safety Committee briefing on the police Flock program is still on the calendar as set. - 2026-10-11 · The Dallas Public Safety Committee briefing on the Flock program stands as set. - 2026-10-15 · The Dallas committee's briefing record on the Flock program reads as set. - 2026-10-18 · The Dallas committee's briefing on the police Flock program still reads as scheduled. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. Still open, with no dated movement. - 2026-10-24 · The Dallas Public Safety Committee's briefing on the police Flock program still stands on its agenda as set. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The committee's agenda item is an update on the police department's plate reader program. > Dallas Police Flock Automated License Plate Reader Program Update - September 2026 Source (primary_official): https://webapi.legistar.com/v1/cityofdallas/matters/25839 ### The city's record carries a MatterAgendaDate of September 8th, 2026. > 2026-09-08 Source (primary_official): https://webapi.legistar.com/v1/cityofdallas/matters/25839 ### The city's record gives the item a MatterTypeName of BRIEFING ITEMS, so it is a briefing rather than an action the committee votes on. > BRIEFING ITEMS Source (primary_official): https://webapi.legistar.com/v1/cityofdallas/matters/25839 ### The chief of police is listed among the presenters. > Daniel C. Comeaux, Chief of Police, Dallas Police Department Source (primary_official): https://webapi.legistar.com/v1/cityofdallas/matters/25839 --- # The University of Texas at Austin requires every course syllabus to state its AI policy The Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost requires a Course Artificial Intelligence Policy in every syllabus every semester. The policy has to name one of three designations. AI is permitted or prohibited or partially permitted. An instructor who allows it has to write down what is permissible and how a student must disclose use. The university names the requirement one of two new syllabus statements for Fall 2026. That term's classes began August 24th, 2026. The rule on generative AI is therefore set course by course rather than university wide. A student can hold two syllabi with two different answers in the same week. - Topic: health-and-education - Decided by: The University of Texas at Austin, Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost (state-agency) - Where: Travis - Statistical areas: - Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Closed - Take part: https://provost.utexas.edu/the-office/academic-affairs/your-syllabus-at-ut-austin/ - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-08-24 · effective: First day of Fall 2026 classes, the term the requirement names ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-03 · Admitted. The provost's office requires a course artificial intelligence policy in every syllabus every semester. The policy has to name AI permitted or prohibited or partially permitted. The university names it one of two new required statements for Fall 2026. That term's classes began August 24th, 2026. - 2026-09-07 · The provost's requirement still stands for the term that began August 24th, 2026. Every syllabus still has to name AI permitted or prohibited or partially permitted, so the answer a student gets still depends on which class they walked into. - 2026-09-10 · The syllabus requirement still stands as adopted, and the university still states it in the same terms. No exception has been published and no revision has been posted against it. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-16 · Every UT Austin syllabus is still required to state its artificial intelligence policy. The requirement has not been softened to a recommendation. - 2026-09-19 · Every syllabus still has to state its own policy on artificial intelligence, and the requirement has not been narrowed. - 2026-09-23 · Every syllabus on the Austin campus is still required to state its own policy. - 2026-09-26 · Every syllabus at UT Austin is still required to state its own policy on artificial intelligence. - 2026-09-29 · UT Austin still requires every syllabus to state the course's policy on artificial intelligence. - 2026-10-02 · Every UT Austin syllabus must still state the course's policy on artificial intelligence. - 2026-10-05 · UT Austin still requires every course syllabus to state its AI policy. - 2026-10-08 · Every UT Austin syllabus is still required to state its AI policy. - 2026-10-11 · UT Austin still requires every syllabus to state its AI policy. - 2026-10-15 · UT Austin still requires every syllabus to state its AI policy. - 2026-10-18 · UT Austin still requires every course syllabus to state its AI policy. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · UT Austin still requires every course syllabus to state its AI policy. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### Every course has to carry an artificial intelligence policy in its syllabus every semester. > All courses must include a Course Artificial Intelligence Policy in the course syllabi at the time each syllabus is published each semester. Source (primary_official): https://provost.utexas.edu/the-office/academic-affairs/your-syllabus-at-ut-austin/ ### The policy has to pick one of three designations. > The Artificial Intelligence Policy must include the University's Course AI Policy Syllabus Statement below and designate whether AI is 1) permitted, 2) prohibited, or 3) partially permitted in each course. Source (primary_official): https://provost.utexas.edu/the-office/academic-affairs/your-syllabus-at-ut-austin/ ### An instructor allowing AI has to write the conditions down and say how a student discloses use. > If an instructor permits or partially permits use of AI in their courses, they must also provide written instructions on what is permissible and what is not and how they expect students to disclose such use. Source (primary_official): https://provost.utexas.edu/the-office/academic-affairs/your-syllabus-at-ut-austin/ ### The university names the requirement as new for the Fall 2026 term. > There are two new required statements for Fall 2026 syllabi Source (primary_official): https://provost.utexas.edu/the-office/academic-affairs/your-syllabus-at-ut-austin/ ### The registrar dates the first day of that term's classes. > August 24 First day of classes Source (primary_official): https://registrar.utexas.edu/calendars/26-27 --- # Federal commodities regulator opens comment on trading derivatives whose underlying commodity is compute The Commodity Futures Trading Commission published a request for comment on August 21st, 2026 asking what a designated contract market should weigh before listing derivatives with compute as the underlier. The document ties the supply side of a compute price to the cost of deploying and operating data centers, and to the cost of chips and energy. Comments closed on October 20th, 2026. The notice names no state. - Topic: defense-and-federal - Decided by: Commodity Futures Trading Commission (federal) - Where: Statewide - Status: pending - Public access: Comment window open - Comment closes: 2026-10-20 - Take part: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-08-21/html/2026-17163.htm - Last checked: 2026-10-23 ## Dates - 2026-08-21 · comment opens: Request for comment published in the Federal Register - 2026-10-20 · comment closes: Comment deadline stated in the notice ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-03 · Admitted. The commodities regulator's request for comment on listing derivatives with compute as the underlier is open until October 20th, 2026. The notice ties the supply side of a compute price to the cost of deploying and operating data centers. - 2026-09-03 · The summary asserted that Texas carries a large share of the data centers such a market would price. No claim here supports that. No national denominator was fetched either, so the sentence is gone. The ERCOT flag read false, which a reader saw as a plain 'No. It sits outside the ERCOT interconnection.' The notice is nationwide, concerns a derivatives market rather than a facility, and names no state. It is neither inside nor outside a Texas interconnection. The flag is unset, which suppresses the question rather than answering it wrongly. - 2026-09-07 · The commodities regulator's request for comment on listing compute derivatives is still open, and October 20th, 2026 is still the date it closes. Anyone who wants to answer the question still can. - 2026-09-10 · The federal request for comment on compute derivatives is still open, with October 20th still the closing date. The questions the regulator asked about what an exchange should weigh before listing such a contract are unchanged. - 2026-09-13 · The comment window is still open, closing October 20th. - 2026-09-16 · The comment window on derivatives whose underlying commodity is compute is still open. Nothing has been posted to close it early or extend it. - 2026-09-19 · The comment window is still open, closing October 20th. - 2026-09-23 · The federal comment file on compute derivatives is still open. - 2026-09-26 · The comment window is still open, closing October 20th. The federal file on compute derivatives is still taking comment. - 2026-09-29 · The comment window is still open, closing October 20th. The commodities regulator is taking views on derivatives whose underlying commodity is compute. - 2026-10-02 · The commodities regulator is still taking comment on derivatives tied to compute, until October 20th. - 2026-10-05 · The federal commodities regulator's comment window on compute derivatives is still open. - 2026-10-08 · The federal commodities regulator is still taking comment on compute derivatives, and the window closes October 20th. - 2026-10-11 · The commodities regulator is still taking comment on compute derivatives. The window closes October 20th. - 2026-10-15 · The commodities regulator is still taking comment on compute derivatives, with the closing date unchanged. - 2026-10-16 · The federal notice on derivatives whose underlying commodity is compute still takes comment until October 20th. - 2026-10-17 · The federal request for comment on compute derivatives is still taking comment, and its closing date of October 20th has not moved. - 2026-10-18 · The request for comment on compute derivatives is still open, and it still closes on October 20th. - 2026-10-20 · The request for comment on trading compute derivatives is open through its last day, October 20th, and the commission's notice still reads as published. - 2026-10-23 · The commission's notice still reads as published, and its comment window closed on October 20th. The record now waits on what the commission does with the answers. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The comment window closes on October 20th, 2026. > Comments must be received on or before October 20, 2026. Source (primary_official): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-08-21/html/2026-17163.htm ### The commission ties the supply side of a compute price to the cost of running data centers. > On the supply side, it reflects the cost of deploying and operating data centers, which in turn depends on the cost of chips, energy and other inputs. Source (primary_official): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-08-21/html/2026-17163.htm ### The document names what it is asking about. > Request for Comment on the Listing of Compute Derivatives Contracts Source (primary_official): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-08-21/html/2026-17163.htm --- # The Texas A&M System's shared AI supercomputer enters the world list at number 66 VISION is the Texas A&M University System's shared AI computing platform. The June 2026 TOP500 list credits it to the System rather than to one campus and records a measured Linpack result of 34.82 petaflops against a theoretical peak of 51.16. The System says the machine entered the list at number 66 in the world. It is 95 nodes carrying 760 graphics processors over 110,960 cores, housed at the West Campus Data Center at Texas A&M University. The System attributes 45 million dollars for advanced computing infrastructure to its Board of Regents and names no meeting date for that approval. The chancellor says the machine gives the System's 12 universities and eight state agencies computing power most institutions could never build alone. The machine's own documentation says something narrower. It read as a controlled beta with invitation-only access in September. It now gives the current status as general availability, and access requires an application approved through System governance. - Topic: research-and-science - Decided by: The Texas A&M University System (state-agency) - Where: Statewide - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://vision.tamus.edu/testing/ - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2025-01-01 · effective: Installation year recorded on the TOP500 entry - 2026-06-01 · ordered: June 2026 TOP500 list the machine entered ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-03 · Admitted. The System's shared AI machine is on the June 2026 TOP500 at number 66 with a measured 34.82 petaflops against a 51.16 peak. Its own documentation gives the current status as a controlled beta and says access is invitation-only and approved through System governance. General availability onboarding is expected in the coming weeks and starts with institutions that have finished technical integration. - 2026-09-07 · The machine's own documentation still gives its status as a controlled beta and still says access is invitation-only and approved through System governance. General availability onboarding is still written in the future tense. - 2026-09-10 · The shared supercomputer still holds its place on the world list at the same rank, and the system's description is unchanged. Nothing has been published that revises either. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-16 · The A&M System machine still holds its place on the world list as entered. Nothing has been published to revise the ranking or the entry. - 2026-09-19 · The shared machine still holds its place on the world list, and the system has announced no change to it. - 2026-09-23 · The shared system still holds its place on the world list. - 2026-09-26 · The A&M System's shared supercomputer still holds its place on the world list. - 2026-09-29 · The A&M System's shared AI supercomputer keeps the place on the world list the record reports. - 2026-10-02 · The A&M System's shared AI supercomputer holds the world list ranking the record reports. - 2026-10-05 · The Texas A&M System's shared AI supercomputer still holds its place on the world list. - 2026-10-08 · The Texas A&M System's shared AI supercomputer is still on the world list. - 2026-10-11 · The Texas A&M System's shared AI supercomputer still holds its place on the world list. - 2026-10-15 · The system's documentation now gives VISION's status as general availability, where it read controlled beta. Access now runs through an application approved by system governance rather than invitation. - 2026-10-18 · The A&M System's AI supercomputer still holds its place on the world list, open to users through system governance. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · The Texas A&M System's shared AI supercomputer still appears on the world list at the rank it entered. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The TOP500 entry's Site field names the Texas A&M University System rather than one campus. > Texas A&M University System Source (primary_official): https://top500.org/system/180452/ ### The list records the measured result and the theoretical peak side by side. > Linpack Performance (Rmax) 34.82 PFlop/s Theoretical Peak (Rpeak) 51.16 PFlop/s Source (primary_official): https://top500.org/system/180452/ ### The list records the core count and the processor those cores sit in. > Cores: 110,960 Processor: Xeon Platinum 8480C 56C 3.8GHz Source (primary_official): https://top500.org/system/180452/ ### The System states where the machine placed on that list. > Ranked No. 66 in the world, VISION now stands in elite company among national laboratories, major research institutions and global technology leaders. Source (primary_official): https://news.tamus.edu/stories/texas-am-system-home-to-nations-fastest-university-supercomputer/ ### The System names the building the machine sits in and says who it is meant to serve. > The system is housed at the West Campus Data Center at Texas A&M University and will support researchers across the A&M System. Source (primary_official): https://news.tamus.edu/stories/texas-am-system-home-to-nations-fastest-university-supercomputer/ ### The System attributes the money to its governing board and gives no date for the approval. > The ranking validates the A&M System's $45 million investment in advanced computing infrastructure, approved by the Board of Regents. Source (primary_official): https://news.tamus.edu/stories/texas-am-system-home-to-nations-fastest-university-supercomputer/ ### The chancellor names who the machine is for. > VISION gives our 12 universities and eight state agencies access to computing power that most institutions could never build alone. Source (primary_official): https://news.tamus.edu/stories/texas-am-system-home-to-nations-fastest-university-supercomputer/ ### The machine is 95 nodes carrying 760 graphics processors. > The supercomputer features 95 NVIDIA DGX nodes, 760 NVIDIA H200 graphics processing units and high-speed storage designed for data-intensive work. Source (primary_official): https://www.tarleton.edu/news/nations-fastest-university-supercomputer-opens-new-doors-for-tarleton-state-research/ ### The machine's own documentation names the phase it is in. > Current Status: General Availability Source (primary_official): https://docs.vision.tamus.edu/ ### The same documentation states the present access rule. > Access requires completing an application and approval by TAMUS governance Source (primary_official): https://docs.vision.tamus.edu/ ### The project's own site states who it will eventually be open to. > VISION will be available to researchers of all disciplines across the entire Texas A&M System. Source (primary_official): https://vision.tamus.edu/ ### The testing page states when wider access starts and which institutions go first. > General Availability onboarding is expected to begin in the coming weeks, beginning with institutions that have completed the technical integration requirements necessary to access VISION services. Source (primary_official): https://vision.tamus.edu/testing/ ### The project's own use cases page gives the size of one screening run on the machine. > large-scale virtual screening of approximately 10.4 million compounds Source (primary_official): https://vision.tamus.edu/usecases/ --- # Homeland Security tested facial biometric capture on pedestrians walking out of the country at the Progreso International Bridge The Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate brought industry partners to the Progreso International Bridge in Hidalgo County to demonstrate facial biometric image capture for U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Customs and Border Protection asked for the work in October 2025. Six companies were invited to the Maryland Test Facility in early 2026 for basic capability demonstrations. Three solutions were selected for further data collection. Two came from NEC National Security Systems and one was a joint solution from Paravision and AiFi. A replica of the pedestrian exit environment was built at the Maryland Test Facility first. The partners then arrived at Progreso in May. Cameras were mounted on poles at different heights. Testing ran after dark as well as in daylight with external lighting configurations. The partners used artificial intelligence to construct a three dimensional digital environment of the image capture zone. They also used it to observe pedestrian movement and to analyze whether facial images were suitable for matching in the Traveler Verification Service. Signs in English and Spanish told pedestrians that United States citizens could opt out. An opt-out lane was provided. The biometric entry and exit mandate applies to travelers who are not United States citizens. The account published on September 1st, 2026 records what the agencies and the vendors said about the result. It publishes no accuracy figure and no count of images captured. It publishes no retention period and no deployment decision. - Topic: surveillance-and-policing - Decided by: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate (federal) - Where: Hidalgo - Statistical areas: - McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/news/2026/09/01/feature-article-biometrics-border-making-exit-secure-and-efficient - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2025-10-01 · filed: Month Customs and Border Protection asked the directorate for solutions - 2026-05-01 · effective: Month the industry partners arrived at the bridge for the operational assessment - 2026-09-01 · ordered: Date the directorate published its account of the test ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-04 · Admitted. The directorate's own account of the operational assessment at the Progreso International Bridge stands as published on September 1st, 2026. It names the crossing, the division that ran the work, the office that asked for it and the three vendor solutions that were taken to the bridge. It states no accuracy figure and no deployment decision. - 2026-09-07 · The article stands as published on September 1st, 2026. The opt-out lane, the signs in English and Spanish, the after-dark testing and the named capture platforms are all still on the page. The account still reports how well the cameras performed without publishing a rate. - 2026-09-10 · The assessment's own published account is still up and still describes the pedestrian exit lane test at the international bridge. It still states that image capture of pedestrians walking through the border exit area exceeded expectations in both day and night conditions. It still states that United States citizens were given a lane out of the image collection if they did not want to take part. - 2026-09-13 · The assessment's own published account would not answer this run, so what it says about the pedestrian exit lane test is unconfirmed today. Nothing the record holds about it has been revised. - 2026-09-14 · The directorate's account of the pedestrian exit test answered this run and still carries the sentences the record quotes. The work is still described as a demonstration for Customs and Border Protection rather than a deployment, and the account still publishes no accuracy figure and no retention period. - 2026-09-17 · The directorate's account of the Progreso pedestrian exit test still reads as the record holds it. The three solutions taken to the bridge, the opt out lane offered to U.S. citizens and the testing done after dark are all still described the same way, and no correction has been posted against it. - 2026-09-20 · What the directorate published about the Progreso pedestrian exit test is unconfirmed this run. The account would not answer, so who was invited, what was captured and when it happened stand on the last reading rather than on a fresh one. - 2026-09-21 · What the directorate published about the Progreso pedestrian exit test is unconfirmed again this run. Who was invited, which solutions went to the bridge and what was offered to citizens who did not want their face captured all rest on one account. That account has now gone unread for four days running. - 2026-09-23 · The demonstration account still reads as the directorate published it. The image capture is still described as having exceeded expectations, and the opt-out lane for U.S. citizens is still part of what was tested. - 2026-09-26 · Whether the demonstration account still reads as the directorate published it is unconfirmed this run. The directorate's own page could not be read again. - 2026-09-27 · The directorate's account of the bridge demonstration still reads as published. It still says capture exceeded expectations day and night, and it still describes the opt-out lane for citizens. - 2026-09-30 · The department's account of the bridge demonstration is unconfirmed this time, because its site would not serve the page. - 2026-10-01 · The department's account of the bridge demonstration is still unconfirmed, because its site again would not serve the page. - 2026-10-02 · The department's account of the bridge demonstration is still unconfirmed, because its site again would not serve the page. - 2026-10-03 · The department's account of the bridge demonstration is still unconfirmed, because its site again would not serve the page. - 2026-10-04 · The department's account of the bridge demonstration is still unconfirmed. Its site still would not serve the page. - 2026-10-05 · The department's account of the facial capture demonstration at the Progreso bridge is still unconfirmed. Its site turns away every automated reader. - 2026-10-06 · The facial capture demonstration at the Progreso bridge is still unconfirmed. The department's site turns away every automated reader. - 2026-10-07 · The pedestrian face capture trial at the border is still unconfirmed. The department's own feature refuses every reader. - 2026-10-08 · The face capture trial on pedestrians at the border remains unconfirmed. The department's own feature still refuses every reader. - 2026-10-09 · The pedestrian face capture trial at the Progreso bridge remains unconfirmed. The department's feature still refuses every reader. - 2026-10-10 · The pedestrian face capture trial at the Progreso bridge stays unconfirmed, because the department's feature refuses every reader. - 2026-10-24 · The federal agency's account of the facial biometric test on pedestrians leaving at the Progreso bridge still reads as published. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The directorate brought industry partners to the Progreso International Bridge to demonstrate facial biometrics for Customs and Border Protection. > The Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) recently brought industry partners to the Progreso International Bridge border crossing in Texas to demonstrate facial biometric capabilities for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Source (primary_official): https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/news/2026/09/01/feature-article-biometrics-border-making-exit-secure-and-efficient ### The bridge director states the annual pedestrian volume crossing out of the United States there. > Over 1.1 million pedestrians exit the U.S. to Mexico annually, and it is imperative to keep them safely moving, Source (primary_official): https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/news/2026/09/01/feature-article-biometrics-border-making-exit-secure-and-efficient ### Six companies were demonstrated at the Maryland Test Facility and three solutions were selected for further data collection. > In early 2026, S&T invited six companies to the Maryland Test Facility (MdTF) for basic capability demonstrations to determine which solutions should be operationally tested. These demonstrations led CBP and S&T to select three solutions for additional data collection: two from NEC National Security Systems (NSS) and one joint solution from Paravision and AiFi. Source (primary_official): https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/news/2026/09/01/feature-article-biometrics-border-making-exit-secure-and-efficient ### The partners arrived at the bridge in May for the operational assessment. > When the industry partners arrived at the Progreso International Bridge in May, they began setting up for the operational assessment that would support CBP's planning. Source (primary_official): https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/news/2026/09/01/feature-article-biometrics-border-making-exit-secure-and-efficient ### Artificial intelligence was used to build a digital model of the capture zone, watch pedestrian movement and judge image suitability for the Traveler Verification Service. > The partners leveraged artificial intelligence (AI) and other technologies to perform tasks such as constructing a 3D digital environment of the image capture zone, observing pedestrian movement, and analyzing facial images to determine whether they were suitable for biometric matching in CBP's Traveler Verification Service. Source (primary_official): https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/news/2026/09/01/feature-article-biometrics-border-making-exit-secure-and-efficient ### Signs told pedestrians that United States citizens could opt out because the mandate applies to travelers who are not citizens. > As pedestrians approached the border exits, signs in English and Spanish informed them that U.S. citizens could opt out of biometric exit collection if they did not wish to have their picture taken, since the biometric Entry/Exit mandate applies to non-U.S. citizen travelers. Source (primary_official): https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/news/2026/09/01/feature-article-biometrics-border-making-exit-secure-and-efficient ### An opt-out lane was provided for United States citizens who declined. > U.S. citizens were provided an opt-out lane if they chose not to participate in the image collection testing. Source (primary_official): https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/news/2026/09/01/feature-article-biometrics-border-making-exit-secure-and-efficient ### The Customs and Border Protection biometrics office describes the result without publishing a measurement. > The image capture capabilities of pedestrians walking through the border exit area exceeded expectations in both day and night conditions. Source (primary_official): https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/news/2026/09/01/feature-article-biometrics-border-making-exit-secure-and-efficient ### A vendor describes the daily image capture volume without a stated count. > We were able to demonstrate NEC's SmartID Express and Neoface Express in real-world outdoor conditions and weather, successfully capturing high-quality facial images of thousands of pedestrians a day, Source (primary_official): https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/news/2026/09/01/feature-article-biometrics-border-making-exit-secure-and-efficient ### The division director describes what the technology had to do at the crossing. > It is one thing for a technology to work in a lab like MdTF, but it is significantly more difficult when the tech is deployed operationally at the border. At Progreso, it had to work with limited infrastructure, in a challenging environment, and do it autonomously, Source (primary_official): https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/news/2026/09/01/feature-article-biometrics-border-making-exit-secure-and-efficient ### Testing was run after dark with external lighting configurations. > Because ports of entry operate day and night, tests were also conducted after dark using external lighting configurations. Source (primary_official): https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/news/2026/09/01/feature-article-biometrics-border-making-exit-secure-and-efficient ### The technologies had to account for walking pace and for what pedestrians wear and carry. > For the testing to be successful, the technologies had to account for human factors such as travelers' walking pace, as well as hats, sunglasses, umbrellas and other items people use or carry. Source (primary_official): https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/news/2026/09/01/feature-article-biometrics-border-making-exit-secure-and-efficient --- # The National Science Foundation puts the national AI research resource into standing operations, co-run from Austin The National Science Foundation established the NSF National Artificial Intelligence Research Resource Operations Center on September 1st, 2026. That moved the resource out of a pilot begun in 2024 and into standing operations. The San Diego Supercomputer Center at the University of California San Diego leads it, in collaboration with the Texas Advanced Computing Center at The University of Texas at Austin. The center coordinates the resource providers and integrates computing and data and models and tools. It operates the national portal and provides support and training to users. The foundation says the pilot has supported over 800 research projects and thousands of innovators and students nationwide. - Topic: research-and-science - Decided by: U.S. National Science Foundation (federal) - Where: Travis - Statistical areas: - Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://www.nsf.gov/cise/updates/nsf-establishes-operations-center-national-artificial - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-09-01 · ordered: Date the foundation announced the operations center ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-04 · Admitted. The foundation's announcement of September 1st, 2026 stands as published. It names the two centers that run the resource and states what the operations center does and what the pilot has supported since 2024. It states no dollar figure. - 2026-09-07 · The foundation's announcement of September 1st, 2026 stands as published. The operations center it established is still led by the San Diego Supercomputer Center in collaboration with the Texas Advanced Computing Center at The University of Texas at Austin. - 2026-09-08 · The foundation's announcement of September 1st, 2026 stands as published. The operations center it established is still led by the San Diego Supercomputer Center at UC San Diego. The Texas Advanced Computing Center at The University of Texas at Austin is still named as the collaborating institution. The announcement still states no dollar figure. - 2026-09-11 · The foundation's announcement still stands. The operations center is still led from San Diego with the Texas Advanced Computing Center at UT Austin named as the collaborating institution. - 2026-09-13 · The operations center is still led from San Diego with the Austin computing center named alongside it, and the foundation's account of what the pilot handed over is unchanged. - 2026-09-16 · The national AI research resource is still in standing operations and still co-run from Austin. The arrangement has not been restructured. - 2026-09-19 · The national research resource is still in standing operations with the Austin center in its co-running role. - 2026-09-23 · The national research resource is still in standing operations and still co-run from Austin. - 2026-09-26 · The national AI research resource is still in standing operations, still co-run from Austin. - 2026-09-29 · The national AI research resource remains in standing operations, with Austin one of the places running it. - 2026-10-02 · The national AI research resource is still in standing operations, with Austin among the places running it. - 2026-10-05 · The national AI research resource still runs in standing operations with its Texas partner. - 2026-10-08 · The national AI research resource is still in standing operations with its Texas partner. - 2026-10-11 · The national AI research resource remains in standing operations with its Texas partner. - 2026-10-15 · The national AI research resource remains in standing operations with its Austin partner. - 2026-10-18 · The national AI research resource is still in standing operations, with its Austin partner co-running it. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · The national AI research resource still runs as a standing operation, co-run from Austin. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The San Diego Supercomputer Center leads the operations center with the Texas Advanced Computing Center at UT Austin. > Led by the San Diego Supercomputer Center at UC San Diego, in collaboration with the Texas Advanced Computing Center at The University of Texas at Austin, the operating center will bring complementary expertise and decades of experience developing and operating national-scale research infrastructure. Source (primary_official): https://www.nsf.gov/cise/updates/nsf-establishes-operations-center-national-artificial ### The foundation states what the operations center does. > coordinate participating resource providers; integrate computing, data, models and tools; operate the national NAIRR portal; and provide support and training to users Source (primary_official): https://www.nsf.gov/cise/updates/nsf-establishes-operations-center-national-artificial ### The foundation states what the pilot has supported since 2024. > supported over 800 research projects and thousands of innovators and students nationwide Source (primary_official): https://www.nsf.gov/cise/updates/nsf-establishes-operations-center-national-artificial --- # National Science Foundation backs a Texas A&M tool that screens whether an alloy can exist before anyone makes it Texas A&M's College of Engineering published on September 4th, 2026 that the National Science Foundation is funding PhaseForge. The software comes from the Department of Materials Science and Engineering and applies machine learning to the CALPHAD phase diagram method. The university states the tool is free and openly available. It states that making the tool free and openly available will help accelerate materials discovery across academia, national laboratories and industry. The announcement names no award number and no dollar figure. - Topic: research-and-science - Decided by: U.S. National Science Foundation (federal) - Where: Brazos - Statistical areas: - College Station-Bryan, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://news.engineering.tamu.edu/news/2026/09/04/nsf-backs-texas-am-tool-that-speeds-materials-discovery/ - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-09-04 · ordered: Date the college published the announcement ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-05 · Admitted on the college's own announcement, fetched today. The tool is stated to be free and openly available and the announcement names no award number, so none is carried here. - 2026-09-08 · The award for the alloy screening tool still stands and the university's account of it is unchanged. A quotation the record carried ran two separated passages together as one, and it now stops where the source stops. - 2026-09-08 · The college's announcement states that PhaseForge is distributed free and openly online and that anyone can contribute to it. It states that making the tool free and openly available will help accelerate materials discovery across academia, national laboratories and industry. It names no award number and no dollar figure. - 2026-09-09 · The Texas A and M alloy screening tool is still funded and still promised as free and openly available. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-16 · The A&M tool that screens whether an alloy can exist before anyone makes it is still funded as described. No change has been posted. - 2026-09-19 · The screening tool is still funded, and it is still aimed at the question of whether an alloy can exist before anyone tries to make one. - 2026-09-23 · The screening tool still answers whether an alloy can exist before anybody tries to make it. - 2026-09-26 · The A&M screening tool still asks whether an alloy can exist before anyone tries to make it. - 2026-09-29 · The A&M tool still screens whether an alloy can exist before anyone makes it. - 2026-10-02 · The A&M screening tool is still funded to judge whether an alloy can exist before anyone makes it. - 2026-10-05 · The NSF award behind the Texas A&M tool that screens whether an alloy can exist still stands. - 2026-10-08 · The NSF award behind Texas A&M's tool for screening whether an alloy can exist is still active. - 2026-10-11 · Texas A&M's NSF award for screening whether an alloy can exist remains active. - 2026-10-15 · Texas A&M's award for screening whether an alloy can exist is still active. - 2026-10-18 · The Texas A&M award for screening whether an alloy can exist is still listed as active. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · The NSF award behind Texas A&M's alloy screening tool is still active. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The university states the tool is distributed free and openly online and that anyone can contribute to it. > PhaseForge is being distributed free and openly online, and anyone can contribute to it. Source (primary_official): https://news.engineering.tamu.edu/news/2026/09/04/nsf-backs-texas-am-tool-that-speeds-materials-discovery/ ### The award is from the National Science Foundation and funds software that is free and open. > A new National Science Foundation award will fund free, open software that uses machine learning to answer a question every materials scientist asks. Source (primary_official): https://news.engineering.tamu.edu/news/2026/09/04/nsf-backs-texas-am-tool-that-speeds-materials-discovery/ ### The tool applies machine learning to the CALPHAD phase diagram method. > It applies machine learning to a decades-old method called CALPHAD Source (primary_official): https://news.engineering.tamu.edu/news/2026/09/04/nsf-backs-texas-am-tool-that-speeds-materials-discovery/ ### The question the method answers is whether a material can exist at all. > that tells researchers whether a material they want to build can exist at all Source (primary_official): https://news.engineering.tamu.edu/news/2026/09/04/nsf-backs-texas-am-tool-that-speeds-materials-discovery/ ### The university states what making the tool free and open is expected to do for the field. > By making the tool free and openly available, Dr. Arróyave will help accelerate materials discovery across academia, national laboratories and industry. Source (primary_official): https://news.engineering.tamu.edu/news/2026/09/04/nsf-backs-texas-am-tool-that-speeds-materials-discovery/ --- # UT Austin funds four fusion seed grants and says in its own release that the AI method offers limited guarantees The Institute for Fusion Studies, the Oden Institute and the Cockrell School jointly funded four fusion seed grants announced on August 31st, 2026. Each pairs a principal investigator in computation with a second in fusion studies and supports graduate students for two years. Three of the four build surrogate machine learning models, covering real time plasma shape control, liquid metal wall alloy screening and alpha particle leakage. The university's own release states the limits of the reinforcement learning approach rather than only its promise. - Topic: research-and-science - Decided by: The University of Texas at Austin (state-agency) - Where: Travis - Statistical areas: - Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://news.utexas.edu/2026/08/31/fusion-energy-seed-grants-launch-new-interdisciplinary-collaborations-at-ut-austin/ - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-08-31 · ordered: Date the university published the announcement ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-05 · Admitted on the university's own release, fetched today. The release states the limits of the machine learning method alongside its promise, and the dollar value of the grants is not published, so none is carried here. - 2026-09-08 · UT Austin's four fusion seed grants still stand, and the release's own caution about the limited guarantees of the AI method is still in it. - 2026-09-09 · The four fusion seed grants at UT Austin are still funded, and the university's own claim about what the AI method offers is unchanged. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-16 · The four fusion seed grants still stand, and UT Austin's own release still says the method offers limited guarantees. That caveat is still in the published text. - 2026-09-19 · The seed grants stand, and the university's own caution about what the method guarantees is still in its release. - 2026-09-23 · The four seed grants still stand, and the university's own release still says the method offers limited guarantees. - 2026-09-26 · The four fusion seed grants still stand, and the release still says the method offers limited guarantees. - 2026-09-29 · The four fusion seed grants stand, and the university's release still says the AI method comes with limited guarantees. - 2026-10-02 · The four fusion seed grants stand, and the university's own release still warns that the AI method's guarantees are limited. - 2026-10-05 · UT Austin's fusion seed grants still stand, and its release still says the AI method offers limited guarantees. - 2026-10-08 · UT Austin's fusion seed grants still stand. The university still says the AI method's guarantees are limited. - 2026-10-11 · UT Austin's fusion seed grants still stand, and the release still calls the AI method's guarantees limited. - 2026-10-15 · UT Austin's fusion seed grants stand, and the release still calls the AI method's guarantees limited. - 2026-10-18 · UT Austin's fusion seed grants stand. The release still says the AI method offers limited guarantees. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · UT Austin's fusion seed grants still stand, and its release still says the AI method offers limited guarantees. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The university states the limits of the machine learning methods it is funding. > Machine learning methods recently applied to plasma control, such as reinforcement learning, have demonstrated impressive capabilities, but they can require large amounts of simulated training data and offer limited guarantees Source (primary_official): https://news.utexas.edu/2026/08/31/fusion-energy-seed-grants-launch-new-interdisciplinary-collaborations-at-ut-austin/ ### Three units fund the seed grants between them. > Funding is provided by all three units. Source (primary_official): https://news.utexas.edu/2026/08/31/fusion-energy-seed-grants-launch-new-interdisciplinary-collaborations-at-ut-austin/ ### The grants support four graduate students for two years. > will support four graduate students for two years as they conduct interdisciplinary research Source (primary_official): https://news.utexas.edu/2026/08/31/fusion-energy-seed-grants-launch-new-interdisciplinary-collaborations-at-ut-austin/ ### Three of the four collaborations replace expensive simulations with trained AI models. > three of the four newly funded collaborations involve taking big, complex computer simulations that require a tremendous amount of time and energy to run, and replacing them with far more efficient AI models that have been trained on the data produced by their beefier predecessors Source (primary_official): https://news.utexas.edu/2026/08/31/fusion-energy-seed-grants-launch-new-interdisciplinary-collaborations-at-ut-austin/ --- # Energy Department research arm funds a Houston led team using AI to search for new magnet materials Rice University published on September 1st, 2026 that the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy awarded a three year grant to a coalition led by the University of Houston. The other partners are Rice and Colorado State University and Carrier Global and Newfound Materials. Rice brings artificial intelligence and atomistic modeling and high throughput computing to the work. Its part is choosing which magnetic materials get made and tested. The stated goal is to find entirely new materials while balancing supply constraint concerns. - Topic: research-and-science - Decided by: U.S. Department of Energy, Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (federal) - Where: Harris - Statistical areas: - Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://news.rice.edu/news/2026/rice-brings-ai-expertise-doe-backed-search-next-generation-magnets - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-09-01 · ordered: Date Rice published its account of the award ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-05 · Admitted on the university's own account of the award, fetched today. The Energy Department's own award document was not located, so the award number is not carried here. - 2026-09-08 · The Energy Department award to the Houston led team searching for new magnet materials still stands as made, and the coalition named in it is unchanged. - 2026-09-09 · The Houston led magnet search is still funded on the terms the Energy Department research arm announced. - 2026-09-12 · The Houston led magnet search is still funded on the terms the Energy Department research arm announced. The university page carrying the award description would not answer this run, so its wording is unconfirmed today. - 2026-09-13 · The magnet search is still funded on the terms the Energy Department research arm announced, and the university still names the same partner institutions. - 2026-09-16 · The award to the Houston led magnets team still stands as made, and both universities still describe it the same way. Nothing has been revised. - 2026-09-19 · The award stands as the energy department's research arm announced it. - 2026-09-23 · The three year award to the Houston led coalition still stands with the same partners. - 2026-09-26 · The University of Houston's own account of the award still reads as it did. The partner university's account could not be read again, so its part is unconfirmed this run. - 2026-09-27 · Both universities' accounts of the magnet materials award still read as announced. - 2026-09-30 · The universities' account of the Energy Department award for the search for new magnets still reads as published. - 2026-10-03 · The universities' account of the Energy Department award for an AI search for new magnets still reads as published. - 2026-10-06 · Both universities still describe the Energy Department award for an AI search for new magnets as they did when it was announced. - 2026-10-09 · Rice's account of the Energy Department award for an AI search for magnet materials still reads as announced. - 2026-10-12 · The Energy Department award for an AI search for magnet materials still reads as Rice announced it. - 2026-10-15 · Rice's account of the Energy Department award for an AI search for magnet materials reads as published. - 2026-10-18 · The University of Houston's release on the Energy Department award for an AI search for magnet materials reads as published. Rice's account is unconfirmed. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · The Energy Department research award for the Houston led AI search for magnet materials still stands. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The Rice investigator states what the AI is for and what constraint it is balancing. > Our goal is to use artificial intelligence to find entirely new materials while simultaneously balancing these supply constraint concerns Source (primary_official): https://news.rice.edu/news/2026/rice-brings-ai-expertise-doe-backed-search-next-generation-magnets ### The award is made by the Energy Department's advanced research arm. > Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy Source (primary_official): https://news.rice.edu/news/2026/rice-brings-ai-expertise-doe-backed-search-next-generation-magnets ### The award is a three year grant from the Energy Department's advanced research arm, at the figure Rice prints. > The project has received a three-year, $2.9 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy's Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy Source (primary_corporate): https://news.rice.edu/news/2026/rice-brings-ai-expertise-doe-backed-search-next-generation-magnets ### The coalition and its lead investigator are named, with the partner institutions and companies. > The coalition led by Jakoah Brgoch, principal investigator and the Eby Nell McElrath Professor of Chemistry at UH, includes researchers from Rice, Colorado State University, Carrier Global, and Houston startup Newfound Materials. Source (primary_corporate): https://news.rice.edu/news/2026/rice-brings-ai-expertise-doe-backed-search-next-generation-magnets ### Rice states what its group contributes and what it is choosing between. > His research team will employ AI, atomistic modeling and high-throughput computing to identify promising magnetic materials for testing Source (primary_official): https://news.rice.edu/news/2026/rice-brings-ai-expertise-doe-backed-search-next-generation-magnets ### The University of Houston states the target the work is set against. > The UH-led team aims to surpass the properties of neodymium iron boron, the current industry-standard material for high-performance permanent magnets Source (primary_official): https://www.uh.edu/news-events/stories/2026/september/09012026-doe-grant-permanent-magnets.php --- # Frontera's queues close permanently on October 1st, 2026 The Texas Advanced Computing Center's Frontera user guide carries a warning. The queues close permanently on October 1st, 2026 after seven years of running. Users will still reach Frontera's file systems to transfer data off. Frontera is funded by the National Science Foundation through award 1818253 and the guide calls it the largest cluster dedicated to open science in the United States. The successor is Horizon. It is funded through the Leadership Class Computing Facility award. Horizon's own guide carries a notice dated in July saying it is still limited only to internal users. That guide also says it is in progress. Horizon lists three ways in. They are the facility's own allocations and the National Artificial Intelligence Research Resource Pilot and the state's allocation system. - Topic: research-and-science - Decided by: Texas Advanced Computing Center, The University of Texas at Austin (state-agency) - Where: Travis - Statistical areas: - Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://docs.tacc.utexas.edu/hpc/frontera/ - Last checked: 2026-09-28 ## Dates - 2026-09-03 · ordered: The Frontera user guide's own last update, carrying the closure warning. This is the date the closure is recorded on the deciding body's own page. - 2026-10-01 · effective: Frontera queues close permanently ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-07 · Admitted. The center's own Frontera guide, last updated September 3rd, 2026, says the queues close permanently on October 1st, 2026 and that the file systems stay reachable for moving data off. The successor machine's guide, last updated August 12th, 2026, still carries a notice dated in July saying it is limited only to internal users. - 2026-09-10 · Frontera's queues are still scheduled to close permanently on October 1st, and the notice to users still reads as it did. No extension has been announced. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-16 · The Frontera queues still close permanently on October 1st. No reprieve and no extension has been published. - 2026-09-19 · The machine's queues still close permanently on October 1st, 2026, and no reprieve has been published. - 2026-09-23 · Whether the decommission notice still reads as it did is unconfirmed this run. The queues are still dated to close on October 1st on the record as it stands. - 2026-09-24 · The decommission notice still dates the end of the queues to October 1st, now a week away. Nothing posted since pushes it back. - 2026-09-26 · Frontera's decommission notice still ends the queues on October 1st, and nothing posted since moves that date. - 2026-09-27 · The center's user guide still gives October 1st as the day Frontera's queues close for good. - 2026-09-28 · With the closing date close, the user guide still carries the notice unchanged, and Horizon is still described as limited to internal users. - 2026-09-29 · Whether the user guide still gives October 1st for the end of Frontera's queues is unconfirmed. The closing notice on the page has changed since the last reading, and the new wording has not been read. - 2026-09-30 · Whether Frontera's queues still close on October 1st is unconfirmed. The user guide could not be read, and no other published notice of the closing was found. - 2026-10-01 · Whether Frontera's queues closed on October 1st as scheduled is unconfirmed. The center's user guide sits on a site that bars automated readers, and no other published notice of the closing has been found. - 2026-10-02 · Whether Frontera's queues closed as scheduled is still unconfirmed. The center's user guide sits on a site that bars automated readers and no other notice of the closing has been found. - 2026-10-03 · Whether Frontera's queues closed on schedule is still unconfirmed. The center's user guide sits on a site that bars automated readers, and no other notice of the closing has been found. - 2026-10-04 · Whether Frontera's queues closed on schedule is still unconfirmed. The center's user guide sits on a site that bars automated readers. - 2026-10-05 · Whether Frontera's queues closed on October 1st as scheduled is still unconfirmed. The center's user guide sits on a site that bars automated readers. - 2026-10-06 · Whether Frontera's queues closed for good on October 1st is still unconfirmed. The user guide that set the date sits on a site that bars automated readers. - 2026-10-07 · Whether Frontera's queues closed for good as scheduled is still unconfirmed. The center's user guide sits on a site that bars automated readers. - 2026-10-08 · Whether Frontera's queues closed for good as scheduled remains unconfirmed. The supercomputing center's pages are still off limits to automated readers. - 2026-10-09 · Whether Frontera's queues closed for good as scheduled remains unconfirmed. The center's pages still bar automated readers. - 2026-10-10 · Whether Frontera's queues closed for good on schedule stays unconfirmed. The center's pages bar automated readers. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The Frontera user guide states the date the queues close and what remains reachable afterward. > After seven years and billions of computing cycles, Frontera will be riding off into decommission sunset. On October 1, 2026, the Frontera queues will be closed permanently. You will still be able to access Frontera's file systems to transfer any data needed. Source (primary_official): https://docs.tacc.utexas.edu/hpc/frontera/ ### The guide states what Frontera is and who funds it. > Frontera is funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) through award #1818253, Computing for the Endless Frontier Source (primary_official): https://docs.tacc.utexas.edu/hpc/frontera/ ### The guide states Frontera's standing among machines open to science. > Frontera is the largest cluster dedicated to open science in the United States and is the Texas Advanced Computing Center's latest flagship system. Source (primary_official): https://docs.tacc.utexas.edu/hpc/frontera/ ### The successor machine's guide states who may use it. > Horizon is still limited only to internal users. (07/24/2026) Source (primary_official): https://docs.tacc.utexas.edu/hpc/horizon/ ### The successor machine's guide states its own completeness. > This user guide is in progress Source (primary_official): https://docs.tacc.utexas.edu/hpc/horizon/ ### The successor machine's guide names the award it is funded through. > Horizon is a National Science Foundation-funded system that is part of the the Leadership Class Computing Facility (LCCF) award, Award Abstract #2323116 Source (primary_official): https://docs.tacc.utexas.edu/hpc/horizon/ ### The center states where an AI assisted workload may run on its machines. > All AI-assisted workloads must be executed on compute nodes only Source (primary_official): https://docs.tacc.utexas.edu/basics/conduct/ ### The center states who is billed for what an AI agent consumes. > All Service Units (SUs) consumed by AI-related workloads will be charged against your allocation. Source (primary_official): https://docs.tacc.utexas.edu/basics/conduct/ ### The center states the consequence of breaking the AI conduct rule. > Failure to follow these guidelines will result in degraded access to TACC resources or administrative action to protect system stability. Source (primary_official): https://docs.tacc.utexas.edu/basics/conduct/ --- # A Texas Senate committee set a hearing on how much water data center cooling uses and whether local water providers are told The Senate Committee on Water, Agriculture and Rural Affairs posted notice that it would meet at 9:00 AM on Tuesday, September 1st, 2026 in hearing room E1.012. Senator Charles Perry chairs it. The notice sets one interim charge and says the committee will hear invited and public testimony on it. The charge is to examine current water consumption rates for high consumption cooling technologies including data centers. It directs the committee to make recommendations improving transparency for local water providers. It also tells the committee to weigh industrial growth against water affordability for households and for agricultural producers. The notice limits public testimony to two minutes and routes written testimony to the committee clerk. The sitting the notice set has passed. The committee's meetings page now lists that sitting and a second one the next day, under columns for the hearing notice, minutes and witness list. Neither the notice nor that page says what the committee heard or what it will recommend. - Topic: land-water-and-permitting - Decided by: Texas Senate Committee on Water, Agriculture and Rural Affairs (state-agency) - Where: Statewide - Status: pending - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://capitol.texas.gov/Committees/MeetingsByCmte.aspx?Leg=89&Chamber=S&CmteCode=C700 - Last checked: 2026-10-23 ## Dates - 2026-09-01 · hearing: Hearing set by the committee's posted notice ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-07 · Admitted. The committee's posted notice sets the hearing for September 1st, 2026 and carries the interim charge in full. The charge names data centers and asks the committee to recommend ways to improve transparency for local water providers. - 2026-09-10 · The committee's schedule still records that it took testimony on water use for data center cooling and on whether local water providers are told. No report has been published from it and no further hearing is posted. - 2026-09-10 · Corrected, and this retracts the line above it. That line says the committee's schedule records that it took testimony. The schedule holds the posted notice, which reads that the committee will meet, and no source under it reports what the committee heard. The title and the summary said the hearing was held and now describe the notice. Two claims were added, for the sentence that sets the meeting and for the instruction on written testimony. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-16 · The Senate hearing on data center cooling water and what local water providers are told is still on the calendar as set. Nothing has been posted to move it. - 2026-09-19 · The hearing on cooling water is still set, and whether a local water provider is told what a data center will draw is still the open question in it. - 2026-09-23 · The senate committee's water hearing is still the only scheduled place that question gets asked. - 2026-09-26 · The Senate committee's hearing on data center cooling water is still where that question is scheduled to be asked. - 2026-09-29 · The Senate hearing is still where lawmakers are set to ask how much water data center cooling uses and whether local providers are told. - 2026-10-02 · The committee's meetings page lists the September 1st sitting the notice set, followed by a second on September 2nd. The notice itself sits on a path this project does not read. - 2026-10-05 · The Senate water committee's notice of its hearing on data center cooling water still reads as posted, with no report from it published. - 2026-10-08 · The Senate committee's meetings page still lists the September 1st sitting on data center cooling water, and no report from it has been published. - 2026-10-14 · The Senate committee's meetings page still lists the September 1st sitting with its notice, minutes and witness list linked, and a second sitting the next day. The notice text sits on a path this project does not read, and no report index was checked. - 2026-10-17 · The Senate committee's meetings page still lists the September 1st sitting on data center cooling water and the sitting the day after, with no later one posted. The notice text sits on a path this project does not read. - 2026-10-20 · The Senate water committee's meetings page still shows the September 1st sitting on data center cooling water and the one the next day, and no later sitting. The hearing notice text stays unread, since its path is closed to this project. - 2026-10-23 · The Senate water committee's page still shows the September 1st sitting on data center cooling water and the one after it, with no later sitting posted. The notice text stays unread, since its path is closed to this project. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The posted notice states the committee, the hour, the date, the room and the chair. > COMMITTEE: Water, Agriculture and Rural Affairs TIME & DATE: 9:00 AM, Tuesday, September 1, 2026 PLACE: E1.012 (Hearing Room) CHAIR: Senator Charles Perry Source (primary_official): https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/schedules/html/C7002026090109001.htm ### The interim charge names the technology it is examining and what it asks the committee to recommend. > Assessing the Water Demands of Energy-Intensive Technologies: Examine the current water consumption rates for high-consumption cooling technologies, including data centers. Make recommendations to improve transparency for local water providers and ensure industrial growth does not compromise the affordability of water for Texas residents and agricultural producers. Source (primary_official): https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/schedules/html/C7002026090109001.htm ### The notice states how long a member of the public may speak. > Public testimony is limited to 2 minutes. Source (primary_official): https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/schedules/html/C7002026090109001.htm ### The notice states that the committee will meet and what it will hear. > The Senate Committee on Water, Agriculture, and Rural Affairs will meet Tuesday, September 1, 2026 at 9:00 am to hear invited and public testimony on the following interim charges Source (primary_official): https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/schedules/html/C7002026090109001.htm ### The notice tells a member of the public how to submit written testimony. > If submitting written testimony, please provide 15 copies to the committee clerk with your name and/or the name of your organization on each copy, and email a digital copy to the clerk of the committee Source (primary_official): https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/schedules/html/C7002026090109001.htm ### The committee's meetings page lists the September 1st sitting the notice set. > September 1, 2026 9:00 AM Source (primary_official): https://capitol.texas.gov/Committees/MeetingsByCmte.aspx?Leg=89&Chamber=S&CmteCode=C700 ### The committee's meetings page now lists a second sitting beside the September 1st one, under columns for the hearing notice, minutes and witness list. > Date and Time Hearing Notice Minutes Witness List Handouts Comments September 2, 2026 9:00 AM September 1, 2026 9:00 AM Source (primary_official): https://capitol.texas.gov/Committees/MeetingsByCmte.aspx?Leg=89&Chamber=S&CmteCode=C700 ### The meetings page names the committee clerk with a phone number and a room. > Senate Committee on Water, Agriculture and Rural Affairs (C700) Clerk: Macie Goodson Phone: (512) 463-0340 Room: SHB 335 Source (primary_official): https://capitol.texas.gov/Committees/MeetingsByCmte.aspx?Leg=89&Chamber=S&CmteCode=C700 --- # The Supreme Court of Texas heard argument on whether a deposition transcript made with AI can stand without a certified court reporter In re Patrick Hughey is a mandamus proceeding filed May 29th, 2025. It began in a Montgomery County wrongful termination suit, where Courthouse News reports the trial court struck a deposition transcript generated with AI because no certified shorthand reporter prepared it. The Supreme Court of Texas heard argument on October 6th, 2026, with the Texas Deposition Reporters Association given time as amicus. The court's rules already let a written transcription of a non-stenographic recording be used to the same extent as a stenographic deposition. They also let a court require a certified reporter's transcript for good cause. The docket also shows amicus filings from the Texas Court Reporters Association and the Texas Trial Lawyers Association. The court's orders pronounced through October 9th, 2026 carry no ruling in the case. What it decides reaches every trial court in the state. - Topic: state-policy - Decided by: Supreme Court of Texas (state-agency) - Where: Statewide - Statistical areas: - Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX - Status: pending - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=25-0463&coa=cossup - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2025-05-29 · filed: Mandamus petition filed - 2026-06-04 · filed: Amicus brief from the Texas Court Reporters Association - 2026-10-06 · hearing: Oral argument before the Supreme Court of Texas ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-07 · Admitted. The court's own case page sets oral argument for the morning of October 6th, 2026. The briefs on the merits are filed on both sides and three amicus filings are in, two of them from the trades whose work the answer decides. - 2026-09-10 · The mandamus is still set for argument on October 6th and the court has not moved the date. Nothing new has been docketed that would change what is to be argued. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-16 · The mandamus argument is still set for October 6th with the court reporters' association still a party. Nothing has been filed to move the date. - 2026-09-19 · The argument date is still set and the court reporters' association is still a party to the proceeding. - 2026-09-23 · The October 6th argument is still on the court's calendar. - 2026-09-26 · The Supreme Court of Texas still has the argument on its calendar, with the court reporters' association in the proceeding. - 2026-09-29 · The Supreme Court of Texas docket still sets argument in the mandamus proceeding for October 6th. - 2026-09-30 · The court's docket still sets oral argument in the court reporters' mandamus proceeding for October 6th. - 2026-10-01 · Whether the October 6th argument setting still stands is unconfirmed. The court's case page sits on a host that bars automated readers, and the court's published submission schedules do not yet list an October sitting for 2026. - 2026-10-03 · Whether the October 6th argument setting still stands is unconfirmed. The court's case page sits on a host that bars automated readers. - 2026-10-04 · Whether the October 6th argument setting still stands is unconfirmed. The court's case page sits on a host that bars automated readers. - 2026-10-05 · Whether the October 6th argument setting still stands is unconfirmed. The court's case page sits on a host that bars automated readers. - 2026-10-06 · Whether the court heard argument today as set is unconfirmed. Its case page sits on a host that bars automated readers. - 2026-10-07 · The court's own submission schedule for October 6th lists In re Patrick Hughey for argument that morning, with a deposition reporters' association heard as amicus. The court's ruling is what comes next. - 2026-10-08 · The court's own submission schedule still lists the case for argument on October 6th. Whether it was argued as set is unconfirmed, because the case page bars automated readers, and the ruling is still to come. - 2026-10-11 · The court's own submission schedule still lists the case for October 6th. A ruling is the next step. - 2026-10-15 · Courthouse News reports the court heard argument on October 6th, and the case awaits an opinion. The court's own case page bars automated readers, so its docket entries are unconfirmed. - 2026-10-18 · The court's submission schedule and the Courthouse News account still place the argument on October 6th. The court's own case page bars automated readers, so its docket entries are unconfirmed. - 2026-10-24 · The Supreme Court of Texas has heard the argument on the AI made deposition transcript, and the case still awaits its opinion. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The court's own case record sets the argument date and hour. > This case has been set for oral argument at 9:00 a.m., October 6, 2026. Source (primary_official): https://search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=25-0463&coa=cossup ### The case record gives the docket number, the filing date, the case type and the style. > Case: 25-0463 Date Filed: 05/29/2025 Case Type: Mandamus/Cause Style: IN RE PATRICK HUGHEY Source (primary_official): https://search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=25-0463&coa=cossup ### The court reporters' trade association filed an amicus brief. > Amicus Curiae Brief received on behalf of Texas Court Reporters Association, Inc., submitted by Jason Ray of Riggs & Ray P.C. of Austin, Texas. Source (primary_official): https://search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=25-0463&coa=cossup ### The opposing party in the underlying suit filed its own brief on the merits. > Real Party in Interest's Brief on the Merits filed on behalf of Reddico Construction Co., Inc. Source (primary_official): https://search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=25-0463&coa=cossup ### The court's submission schedule for its October 6th sitting lists the case for oral argument and names the relator's counsel. > Relator will be represented by Bradley W. Snead (Wright Close Barger & Guzman), from Houston. Source (primary_official): https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1463419/10-06-submission-schedule.pdf ### Courthouse News reports the court heard the argument over an AI generated deposition transcript. > AUSTIN, Texas (CN) — The Texas Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday over whether an individual should be allowed to submit an AI-generated transcript of a deposition as evidence. Source (journalism): https://www.courthousenews.com/texas-high-court-toys-with-ai-transcripts-for-witness-depositions/ ### The trial court struck the transcript because no certified shorthand reporter prepared it. > The trial court in Montgomery County struck the AI-generated transcript the employee submitted from the record back in April 2025 because the transcript was not prepared by a certified shorthand reporter. Source (journalism): https://www.courthousenews.com/texas-high-court-toys-with-ai-transcripts-for-witness-depositions/ ### The rules let a transcription of a non-stenographic recording be used like a stenographic deposition, and let a court require a certified reporter's transcript for good cause. > A non- stenographic recording of an oral deposition, or a written transcription of all or part of such a recording, may be used to the same extent as a deposition taken by stenographic means. However, the court, for good cause shown, may require that the party seeking to use a non- stenographic recording or written transcription first obtain a complete transcript of the deposition recording from a certified court reporter. Source (primary_official): https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1462349/texas-rules-of-civil-procedure.pdf ### The court's submission schedule gave the deposition reporters' association time at argument as amicus. > Amicus Curiae, Texas Deposition Reporters Association, will be represented by Shelby O’Brien (Butler Snow LLP), from Austin. Source (primary_official): https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1463419/10-06-submission-schedule.pdf ### The orders the Supreme Court of Texas pronounced on October 9th, 2026 list no order in case 25-0463. > Orders Pronounced October 9, 2026 Source (primary_official): https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1463460/supreme-court-of-texas-orders-10-09-2026.pdf --- # Brownsville takes up a temporary moratorium on data centers after staff tells the commission its code has no rules for them At its September 1st, 2026 meeting the Brownsville City Commission considered starting the process for a temporary moratorium. It would cover data centers alongside private gaming clubs, automotive quick lube facilities, event centers and self storage. City staff told the commission that Brownsville's Unified Development Code contains no regulations addressing data centers. The stated purpose is to give the city time to study electricity and energy use, water consumption, noise, land use compatibility, infrastructure and economic and fiscal impacts. The proposal also reactivates the city's Environmental and Conservation Task Force to study data center development and recommend to the commission. The city's own account says an initial moratorium could run up to 90 days and could be extended for another 90 days after further proceedings. - Topic: data-centers - Decided by: City of Brownsville City Commission (city) - Where: Cameron - Statistical areas: - Brownsville-Harlingen, TX - Status: pending - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://www.brownsvilletx.gov/m/newsflash/home/detail/3425 - Last checked: 2026-10-05 ## Dates - 2026-09-01 · hearing: City Commission meeting where the moratorium process was taken up ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-07 · Admitted. The city's own account of the September 1st, 2026 meeting says the commission took up the process for a temporary moratorium. The same account says staff told it the land development code has no rules for data centers. Nothing in that account records a vote. - 2026-09-10 · The temporary moratorium on data centers is still before the city and still unscheduled. The staff recommendation behind it has not been withdrawn. - 2026-09-13 · The temporary moratorium is still something the commission has taken up rather than adopted, and no date has been published for a vote on it. - 2026-09-16 · Brownsville's temporary moratorium is still before the commission rather than adopted, and the staff advice that prompted it is unchanged. No vote has been posted. - 2026-09-19 · The temporary moratorium is still before the commission, whose own staff told it the code has no rules for these buildings. - 2026-09-24 · Where the temporary moratorium stands before the commission is unconfirmed this run. The city's own notice could not be read again. - 2026-09-26 · Brownsville's temporary moratorium is still before the commission, with no final action posted. - 2026-09-29 · Brownsville's commission has posted no final action on the temporary data center moratorium. - 2026-10-02 · Brownsville's commission has posted no final action on the temporary moratorium. - 2026-10-05 · Brownsville still has the temporary data center moratorium before its commission, with no final vote posted. - 2026-10-08 · Whether Brownsville's commission has voted on the temporary moratorium is unconfirmed, because the city's records refused the request. - 2026-10-09 · Whether Brownsville's commission has voted on the temporary moratorium is unconfirmed, because the city's site refused the request. - 2026-10-10 · Whether Brownsville's commission has voted on the temporary moratorium stays unconfirmed, because the city's site refused the request. - 2026-10-24 · Brownsville's temporary data center moratorium is unconfirmed today, since the city's notice refused the request. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The city's own account names what the moratorium would cover and why. > The Commission considered the process for a temporary moratorium covering data centers, private gaming clubs, automotive quick-lube facilities, event centers, and self-storage facilities while the City evaluates potential regulations. Source (primary_official): https://www.brownsvilletx.gov/m/newsflash/home/detail/3425 ### City staff told the commission what the land development code says about data centers today. > City staff explained that Brownsville's Unified Development Code does not currently contain specific regulations addressing data centers. Source (primary_official): https://www.brownsvilletx.gov/m/newsflash/home/detail/3425 ### The city names the questions the pause is meant to buy time to study. > The proposed process would give the City time to study issues including electricity and energy use, water consumption, noise, land-use compatibility, infrastructure, and potential economic and fiscal impacts. Source (primary_official): https://www.brownsvilletx.gov/m/newsflash/home/detail/3425 ### The city states how long a moratorium may run under state law. > Under state law, an initial moratorium could remain in effect for up to 90 days and could later be extended for another 90 days after additional required proceedings. Source (primary_official): https://www.brownsvilletx.gov/m/newsflash/home/detail/3425 --- # Austin bars its city manager from buying any park camera or drone that depends on artificial intelligence Austin City Council adopted Resolution No. 20260812-017 on August 12th, 2026. It directs the City Manager to write a Parks Security Implementation Plan. It also directs the manager to acquire and deploy security equipment for city parks and recreation lands. The resolution lists the kinds of equipment contemplated. Security cameras are on that list. So are non-recording drones as first responders. So are lighting and access control and signage and radio. The resolution then forbids the City Manager from considering any camera or drone system that depends on artificial intelligence to conduct surveillance or analysis. Anything acquired has to comply with the surveillance technology ordinance the council adopted in April. Parks with a history of violent crime are prioritized for the first deployment. The City Manager owes a progress update to the Council Climate, Water, Environment, and Parks Committee no later than December 9th, 2026. The resolution sets the date by which the update is owed and does not set a date for a meeting. The April ordinance the resolution points at is City Code Chapter 2-19. It already lists artificial intelligence or machine learning tools among what is not permitted. The exception is whatever the city's own policy allows. - Topic: surveillance-and-policing - Decided by: Austin City Council (city) - Where: Travis - Statistical areas: - Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://services.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=479192 - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-08-12 · decided: Resolution No. 20260812-017 adopted and attested by the City Clerk - 2026-12-09 · ordered: the date by which the resolution orders the City Manager to give the Council Climate, Water, Environment, and Parks Committee a progress update. No meeting is set for it ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-08 · Admitted to the record. The executed resolution is posted in the city's document system. It carries the prohibition on an artificial intelligence camera or drone, the compliance requirement, and the date the City Manager owes the council committee a progress update. - 2026-09-11 · The executed resolution is unchanged. Its bar on any camera or drone system that depends upon artificial intelligence still stands in the adopted text. So does the progress update the City Manager owes the council committee. - 2026-09-13 · The executed resolution is unchanged. Its bar on any camera or drone system that depends upon artificial intelligence still stands in the adopted text, as does the progress update it requires. - 2026-09-16 · Austin's bar on buying a park camera or drone that depends on artificial intelligence is still in force as adopted. The city manager has reported nothing back against it. - 2026-09-19 · The city manager is still barred from buying a park camera or drone that depends on artificial intelligence. The progress update the resolution asks that officer for has not been published. - 2026-09-24 · The resolution still bars the city manager from buying a park camera or drone that depends on artificial intelligence. The progress update it asks for has not been published. - 2026-09-27 · The resolution still bars the city manager from buying a park camera or drone that depends on artificial intelligence. The progress update it asks for is still unpublished. - 2026-09-30 · The council's resolution still bars the city manager from buying a park camera or drone that depends on artificial intelligence. - 2026-10-03 · Austin's resolution still bars the city manager from buying a park camera or drone that depends on AI. - 2026-10-06 · Austin's resolution still bars the city manager from buying a park camera or drone that depends on AI, as the council adopted it. - 2026-10-09 · Austin's resolution still bars the city manager from buying a park camera or drone that depends on AI, as adopted. - 2026-10-12 · Austin's ban on park cameras and drones that depend on AI still binds the city manager as adopted. - 2026-10-15 · Austin's resolution still bars the city manager from buying a park camera or drone that depends on AI, and the progress update date stands. - 2026-10-18 · Austin's agenda and the surveillance ordinance still answer as cited. The executed resolution barring AI park cameras and drones is unconfirmed. - 2026-10-21 · Austin's resolution still bars the city manager from considering any park camera or drone that depends on artificial intelligence. A progress update is due to the council committee by December 9th. - 2026-10-24 · Austin's resolution still bars the city manager from buying any park camera or drone that depends on AI. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The resolution forbids the City Manager from considering a camera or drone system that relies on artificial intelligence. > The City Manager shall not consider acquisition of any camera or drone system that depends upon artificial intelligence to conduct surveillance or analysis. Source (primary_official): https://services.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=479192 ### The executed copy carries the resolution number. > RESOLUTION NO. 20260812-017 Source (primary_official): https://services.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=479192 ### Any surveillance technology the city buys under the resolution has to comply with the ordinance the council adopted in April, which sits in the city code. > Any surveillance technology sought must be acquired, deployed, and used in full compliance with all requirements of Ordinance No. 20260423-029, codified at City Code Chapter 2-19 Source (primary_official): https://services.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=479192 ### The resolution names the equipment the city may buy for its parks. > potentially including but not limited to, security cameras, non-recording drones as first responders, lighting, access control/fencing/gates, signage and wayfinding, and radio communication systems Source (primary_official): https://services.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=479192 ### Parks with a history of violent crime get the equipment first. > Parks with a history of violent crime shall be prioritized for the initial deployment of this equipment. Source (primary_official): https://services.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=479192 ### The resolution sets a date by which the City Manager owes the council committee a progress update. > The City Manager shall provide a progress update on the direction given in this Resolution to the Council Climate, Water, Environment, and Parks Committee no later than December 9, 2026. Source (primary_official): https://services.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=479192 ### The item was on the council's August 12th agenda and is described there. > Approve a resolution directing the City Manager to develop a security implementation plan for City parks and recreation lands and facilities Source (primary_official): https://www.austintexas.gov/council/2026/20260812-reg ### The April ordinance the resolution points at already lists artificial intelligence tools among what it does not permit. > (B) artificial intelligence or machine learning tools, except as consistent with City policy Source (primary_official): https://services.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=473428 --- # National Science Foundation puts UT Austin's supercomputing center in an operating role for the national AI research resource The National Science Foundation announced on September 1st, 2026 that it is establishing an operations center for the National Artificial Intelligence Research Resource. The center is led by the San Diego Supercomputer Center at UC San Diego. The Texas Advanced Computing Center at The University of Texas at Austin is named as the collaborating institution. The pilot the operations center takes over has supported over 800 research projects. That names a Texas public institution on the center that operates the national resource rather than only on a machine behind it. - Topic: research-and-science - Decided by: National Science Foundation (federal) - Where: Travis - Statistical areas: - Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://www.nsf.gov/cise/updates/nsf-establishes-operations-center-national-artificial - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-09-01 · decided: the date the National Science Foundation published the establishment of the operations center ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-08 · Admitted to the record. The agency's own announcement names the Texas Advanced Computing Center at UT Austin as the collaborating institution on the operations center. - 2026-09-10 · Corrected. The summary listed the duties of the operations center and called the Texas role the front door to federal AI compute. Neither sentence had a source under it, and both are gone. - 2026-09-11 · The agency page putting the Austin supercomputing center in an operating role has not changed. What the pilot handed over is still described the same way, and no further institution has been added to the collaboration. - 2026-09-13 · The agency page putting the Austin computing center in an operating role for the national resource still reads as it did. The leadership class facility is still named as its responsibility. - 2026-09-16 · UT Austin's supercomputing center is still in the operating role the foundation gave it for the national AI research resource. The role has not been reassigned. - 2026-09-19 · The supercomputing center still holds its operating role in the national resource. - 2026-09-23 · The Austin supercomputing center still holds its operating role. - 2026-09-26 · TACC still holds its operating role in the national AI research resource. - 2026-09-29 · The supercomputing center in Austin keeps its operating role in the national AI research resource. - 2026-10-02 · The Austin supercomputing center still holds its operating role in the national AI research resource. - 2026-10-05 · UT Austin's supercomputing center still holds its operating role for the national AI research resource. - 2026-10-08 · UT Austin's supercomputing center keeps its operating role in the national AI research resource. - 2026-10-11 · UT Austin's supercomputing center still holds its operating role in the national AI research resource. - 2026-10-15 · UT Austin's supercomputing center keeps its operating role in the national AI research resource. - 2026-10-18 · UT Austin's supercomputing center still holds its operating role in the national AI research resource. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · UT Austin's supercomputing center still holds its operating role in the national AI research resource. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The National Science Foundation names the Texas Advanced Computing Center at UT Austin as the collaborating institution on the operations center. > Led by the San Diego Supercomputer Center at UC San Diego, in collaboration with the Texas Advanced Computing Center at The University of Texas at Austin, the operating center will bring complementary expertise and decades of experience developing and operating national-scale research infrastructure. Source (primary_official): https://www.nsf.gov/cise/updates/nsf-establishes-operations-center-national-artificial ### The agency states the scale of the pilot the operations center takes over. > the pilot has supported over 800 research projects Source (primary_official): https://www.nsf.gov/cise/updates/nsf-establishes-operations-center-national-artificial --- # Texas State University moves an AI pavement inspection method toward statewide highway use Texas State University published on August 24th, 2026 that its project on artificial intelligence for pavement condition assessment has entered a second phase. The method reads two dimensional surface images paired with three dimensional depth data and finds cracking and other damage at pixel level rather than relying on a human rater's judgment. The university describes the second phase as closer to statewide deployment. Pavement condition ratings are what decide which roads get repair money, so moving that judgment from a rater to a model changes how the money is aimed. - Topic: research-and-science - Decided by: Texas State University (state-agency) - Where: Hays - Statistical areas: - Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://news.txst.edu/research-and-innovation/2026/txst-team-develops-accurate-road-condition-evaluation.html - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-08-24 · decided: the date the university published that the project had entered its second phase ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-08 · Admitted to the record. The university's announcement says the pavement assessment project has entered a second phase and is closer to statewide deployment. - 2026-09-11 · The university's account of the second phase is unchanged, and it still describes the method as closer to statewide deployment than to a trial. Nothing new has been published about when a highway agency would adopt it. - 2026-09-13 · The university still describes the pavement method as being in its second phase and closer to statewide use than to a trial. - 2026-09-16 · The Texas State pavement inspection method is still moving toward statewide highway use, with the university and the highway department describing it the same way. Nothing has stalled it on the record. - 2026-09-19 · The pavement method is still moving toward statewide use and has not been adopted as the standard. - 2026-09-23 · The pavement method is still moving toward statewide use and the department has not adopted it. - 2026-09-26 · The Texas State pavement method is still moving toward statewide use, and the highway department has not adopted it. - 2026-09-29 · TxDOT has not adopted the Texas State pavement inspection method for statewide use, and the university still reports it moving that way. - 2026-10-02 · TxDOT has not adopted the Texas State pavement method statewide, and the university still describes it as heading that way. - 2026-10-05 · Texas State's AI pavement inspection method is still headed toward statewide highway use. - 2026-10-08 · Texas State's AI method for inspecting pavement is still on its way to statewide highway use. - 2026-10-11 · Texas State's AI pavement inspection method is still headed toward statewide highway use. - 2026-10-15 · Texas State's AI pavement inspection method is still described as headed for statewide highway use. - 2026-10-18 · Texas State's AI pavement inspection method is still described as moving toward statewide highway use. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · Texas State's AI pavement inspection method is still moving toward statewide highway use. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The university says the project is in a second phase and closer to statewide deployment. > is now in its second phase, closer to statewide deployment with faster, more precise pixel-level detection of pavement damage than manual inspections. Source (primary_official): https://news.txst.edu/research-and-innovation/2026/txst-team-develops-accurate-road-condition-evaluation.html ### The university states the size of the road network the work is aimed at. > 703,000 lane miles of highways Source (primary_official): https://news.txst.edu/research-and-innovation/2026/txst-team-develops-accurate-road-condition-evaluation.html --- # Texas A&M tells its campus to run AI through a university portal rather than a public chatbot Texas A&M University Technology Services published guidance on August 31st, 2026 naming TAMU AI Chat as the university approved way for faculty, staff and students to use commercial AI models. The single platform carries models from several vendors behind a university login. The university states the service supports information classified up to and including University-Confidential, which is what decides whether a researcher may put non-public university data into a model at all. It also states that conversations in the tool are not used to train external models. The same channel that protects the data is a channel the university controls, and the guidance does not say what the university does with the conversations itself. - Topic: health-and-education - Decided by: Texas A&M University Technology Services (state-agency) - Where: Brazos - Statistical areas: - College Station-Bryan, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://dsait.tamu.edu/news/2026/08/31/tamu-ai-chat/ - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-08-31 · decided: the date the university published the guidance naming the approved platform ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-08 · Admitted to the record. The university's guidance naming its approved AI platform is posted. It states both the data classification the platform is cleared for and that conversations are not used to train outside models. - 2026-09-11 · The guidance still names the university portal as the approved route and still states the data classification it is cleared for. The promise that conversations there are not used to train outside models is unchanged. - 2026-09-13 · The guidance still names the university portal as the approved route and still states the data classification it is cleared for. It still says conversations there are not used to train outside models. - 2026-09-16 · Texas A&M still tells its campus to route artificial intelligence work through the university portal rather than a public chatbot. The instruction has not been relaxed. - 2026-09-19 · The instruction to use the university portal rather than a public chatbot is still the campus rule. - 2026-09-23 · The campus is still told to use the university portal rather than a public chatbot. - 2026-09-26 · Texas A&M still tells its campus to use the university portal rather than a public chatbot. - 2026-09-29 · Texas A&M still points its campus to the university's own AI portal and away from public chatbots. - 2026-10-02 · Texas A&M still directs its campus to the university's AI portal rather than a public chatbot. - 2026-10-05 · Texas A&M still tells its campus to run AI through the university portal rather than a public chatbot. - 2026-10-08 · Texas A&M still points its campus to the university's own AI portal rather than a public chatbot. - 2026-10-11 · Texas A&M still directs its campus to its own AI portal over a public chatbot. - 2026-10-15 · Texas A&M still steers its campus to its own AI portal rather than a public chatbot. - 2026-10-18 · Texas A&M still tells its campus to use the university portal for AI rather than a public chatbot. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · Texas A&M still tells its campus to run AI through the university portal rather than a public chatbot. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The university states the platform carries models from several commercial vendors in one place. > Unlike public AI services, TAMU AI Chat provides a single platform that offers access to multiple commercial AI models, including technologies from OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and other providers. Source (primary_official): https://dsait.tamu.edu/news/2026/08/31/tamu-ai-chat/ ### The university states the data classification the platform is cleared for. > supports information classified up to and including University-Confidential data Source (primary_official): https://dsait.tamu.edu/news/2026/08/31/tamu-ai-chat/ ### The university states that conversations in the tool are not used to train outside models. > user conversations within TAMU AI Chat are not used to train external AI models Source (primary_official): https://dsait.tamu.edu/news/2026/08/31/tamu-ai-chat/ --- # University of North Texas lists an undergraduate artificial intelligence degree The University of North Texas lists a Bachelor of Science in Artificial Intelligence through its Department of Computer Science and Engineering. The program page describes a four year curriculum starting in July 2026 and focused on the applications of AI development. - Topic: health-and-education - Decided by: University of North Texas (state-agency) - Where: Denton - Statistical areas: - Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://engineering.unt.edu/cse/undergraduate/bsai.html - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-08 · Admitted to the record. The university's program page states the length of the curriculum and when it starts. - 2026-09-08 · The university's page states that the four year curriculum starts in July 2026 and names no day within that month, so the record carries the month and no date. - 2026-09-11 · The degree page is unchanged and the curriculum still starts this year. The department still describes it as a named four year degree rather than a concentration inside computer science. - 2026-09-13 · The degree is still published as a named four year bachelor of science rather than a concentration, and the start of the curriculum is unchanged. - 2026-09-16 · The University of North Texas undergraduate artificial intelligence degree is still open as launched. No change to the program has been posted. - 2026-09-19 · The undergraduate degree is still open and the university has not changed what it admits into it. - 2026-09-23 · The undergraduate degree is still open at Denton. - 2026-09-26 · The undergraduate degree in artificial intelligence is still open at the Denton campus. - 2026-09-29 · UNT's undergraduate degree in artificial intelligence is still being offered. - 2026-10-02 · UNT still offers its undergraduate degree in artificial intelligence. - 2026-10-05 · The University of North Texas still offers its undergraduate degree in artificial intelligence. - 2026-10-08 · The University of North Texas still offers its undergraduate degree in artificial intelligence. - 2026-10-11 · The University of North Texas still offers its undergraduate AI degree. - 2026-10-15 · The University of North Texas still lists its undergraduate AI degree. - 2026-10-18 · The University of North Texas still lists its undergraduate degree in artificial intelligence. - 2026-10-22 · The university's degree page did not answer today, so the undergraduate degree in artificial intelligence is unconfirmed since its last check. - 2026-10-23 · The university's degree page could not be reached today, so the undergraduate degree in artificial intelligence stays unconfirmed since October 18th. - 2026-10-24 · The University of North Texas artificial intelligence degree is unconfirmed today, since the program page did not answer. - 2026-10-24 · The university's program page confirms the named bachelor of science and the four year curriculum starting in July 2026. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The university states the curriculum's length and its start. > This 4-year curriculum, starting in July 2026, is designed to help students master the applications of AI development Source (primary_official): https://engineering.unt.edu/cse/undergraduate/bsai.html --- # Federal investigators opened a defect evaluation into a driverless system after crashes in Dallas and Austin The Office of Defects Investigation at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration opened a preliminary evaluation into the Avride automated driving system. The resume gives the date it was opened as the sixth of May, 2026. It was prompted by crash reports filed under the agency's standing general order. The resume says the crashes happened in Dallas and in Austin. The failure report summary gives a crash total and a single alleged minor injury. Investigators reviewed video of every crash. The video shows vehicles changing lanes into other vehicles and failing to slow for what was ahead of them. A person sat in the driver's seat during every one of those crashes while the system drove. The office also records its understanding that the same vehicles carry paying passengers on a ride-hailing platform in Dallas. The document makes no finding of defect. Its strongest statement is that the system's performance may indicate inappropriate assertiveness and insufficient competence. The agency's own investigation status pages would not answer a request this run, so the record can't say what state the evaluation is in today. What it can say is that it was opened and that the document reaches no conclusion. - Topic: defense-and-federal - Decided by: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Defects Investigation (federal) - Where: Dallas, Travis - Statistical areas: - Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX - Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX - Status: unknown - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2026/INOA-PE26003-14280.pdf - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-05-06 · filed: the date opened given on the ODI resume for the preliminary evaluation ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-08 · Admitted to the record. The resume was read in full this run and every claim below is quoted from it. - 2026-09-08 · The agency's own investigation status pages would not answer, so what state the preliminary evaluation is in today is not on the record. The resume gives December 3rd, 2025 as the office's understanding of when public passenger service began in Dallas. That is a fact about the service rather than a step in this evaluation. - 2026-09-11 · The opening resume answered this run, and every line the record quotes from it is unchanged. No closing resume has been published, so whether the preliminary evaluation is still running is unconfirmed. - 2026-09-13 · The opening resume still reads as the record quotes it. No closing resume has been published, so whether the evaluation has widened or ended is still unknown. - 2026-09-16 · The federal defect evaluation opened after the Dallas and Austin crashes is still open. No finding and no closure notice has been published. - 2026-09-19 · Checked and unchanged. Still unknown, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-23 · The federal evaluation is still open and has produced no finding. - 2026-09-26 · The federal defect evaluation into the driverless system is still open, with no finding. - 2026-09-29 · The federal defect evaluation of the driverless system has reached no finding. - 2026-10-02 · The federal defect evaluation of the driverless system has still reached no finding. - 2026-10-05 · The federal defect evaluation into the driverless system after the Dallas and Austin crashes is still open, with no finding published. - 2026-10-08 · The federal defect evaluation opened after the Dallas and Austin crashes has published no finding yet. - 2026-10-11 · The federal defect evaluation opened after the Dallas and Austin crashes has reported no finding. - 2026-10-15 · The federal defect evaluation opened after the Dallas and Austin crashes shows no finding. - 2026-10-18 · The federal defect evaluation into the driverless system is still open, with no finding posted. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. Still unknown, with no dated movement. - 2026-10-24 · The federal defect evaluation into the driverless system after the Dallas and Austin crashes still reads as opened. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The Office of Defects Investigation received reports of crashes involving automated vehicles with the Avride automated driving system engaged. > The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) has received several reports of crashes involving automated vehicles (AVs) equipped with the Avride automated driving system (ADS) engaged at the time of the crash. Source (primary_official): https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2026/INOA-PE26003-14280.pdf ### The resume names the two Texas cities the crashes happened in. > The crashes occurred in Dallas, Texas and Austin, Texas. Source (primary_official): https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2026/INOA-PE26003-14280.pdf ### The resume gives the investigation number, what prompted it, and the date it was opened. > Investigation: PE26003 Prompted By: SGO 2021-01 crash reports Date Opened: 05/06/2026 Source (primary_official): https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2026/INOA-PE26003-14280.pdf ### The action recorded on the resume is to open a preliminary evaluation. > Action: Open this Preliminary Evaluation Source (primary_official): https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2026/INOA-PE26003-14280.pdf ### The manufacturer named on the resume is Avride Inc. > MANUFACTURER & PRODUCT INFORMATION Manufacturer: Avride Inc. Source (primary_official): https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2026/INOA-PE26003-14280.pdf ### The resume names the product under investigation and gives an estimated population for it. > Products: Avride Automated Driving System (ADS) Population: 200 (Estimated) Source (primary_official): https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2026/INOA-PE26003-14280.pdf ### The stated subject is conflict avoidance, driving behavior competence and assertiveness. > Subject: Automated Driving System (ADS) conflict avoidance, driving behavior competence and assertiveness Source (primary_official): https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2026/INOA-PE26003-14280.pdf ### The problem described is lane changes into other vehicles and failures to avoid vehicles or objects in the roadway. > Automated Vehicles (AVs) executing lane changes into other vehicles and failing to avoid vehicles or objects in the roadway, resulting in crashes Source (primary_official): https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2026/INOA-PE26003-14280.pdf ### The failure report summary gives the crash total. > Crashes/Fires: 0 0 0 16 16 0 Source (primary_official): https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2026/INOA-PE26003-14280.pdf ### The crashes resulted in property damage and one alleged minor injury. > These crashes have resulted in property damage and one alleged minor injury. Source (primary_official): https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2026/INOA-PE26003-14280.pdf ### A person sat in the driver's seat during every one of the crashes while the system drove. > During each of these crashes, the AVs were operating with the ADS performing the dynamic driving task while under the supervision of an in-vehicle operator in the driver's seat. Source (primary_official): https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2026/INOA-PE26003-14280.pdf ### The office states its understanding that the vehicles carry public passengers on a ride-hailing platform in Dallas, and gives the date that service began. > Furthermore, ODI understands that Avride is operating some of its AVs on the Uber ride-hailing platform and has offered passenger service to the public since December 3, 2025 in Dallas where many of the reported crashes have occurred. Source (primary_official): https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2026/INOA-PE26003-14280.pdf ### The office reviewed video of each crash and describes what the video shows. > The videos show instances of the AVs changing lanes into the path of or directly into other vehicles traveling in an adjacent lane and in close proximity to an AV; failing to slow or stop for slow-moving or stopped vehicles in the lane and path ahead; failing to slow for or avoid vehicles entering the lane and path ahead; and striking stationary objects partially obstructing the lane and path ahead. Source (primary_official): https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2026/INOA-PE26003-14280.pdf ### The strongest statement the document makes about cause is conditional. > The ADS performance in these crashes may indicate inappropriate assertiveness and insufficient competence to execute these driving behaviors in a safe manner and may also constitute traffic safety violations. Source (primary_official): https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2026/INOA-PE26003-14280.pdf ### The evaluation was opened to determine the scope, nature and severity of the potential problems and the risks to passengers and other road users. > ODI has opened this Preliminary Evaluation to investigate the performance of the Avride ADS in order to determine the scope, nature and severity of the potential problems and to assess the potential safety risks to passengers and other road users. Source (primary_official): https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2026/INOA-PE26003-14280.pdf ### The investigation may widen to other driving behaviors if evidence implicates them. > If additional evidence received during this investigation implicates the competence of the Avride ADS with respect to other driving behaviors, these may be considered as part of this investigation as well. Source (primary_official): https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2026/INOA-PE26003-14280.pdf --- # Case managers beat Houston Methodist's discharge AI on the last day JAMA Network Open published a quality improvement study on September 3rd, 2026. It compared discharge dates from a commercial AI tool built into Houston Methodist Hospital's electronic health record against dates estimated by the hospital's own case managers. The study covered inpatient encounters discharged between August 1st, 2023 and February 28th, 2024. At admission the two were close. Nearer to discharge, which is when the answer is used to plan a bed, the case managers were substantially more accurate. It reports estimation accuracy rather than any effect on a patient, and says so. - Topic: health-and-education - Decided by: Houston Methodist Hospital (company) - Where: Harris - Statistical areas: - Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13543018/ - Last checked: 2026-10-21 ## Dates - 2026-09-03 · filed: Published in JAMA Network Open ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-09 · Admitted on the published study. The hospital has said nothing about whether the tool is still in front of its case managers, and the study names no vendor. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-16 · The Houston Methodist result still reads the way it was published, with the case managers ahead of the tool where the date matters most. No correction has been issued. - 2026-09-19 · The finding stands as published, and the hospital has said nothing further about what it did with the tool afterwards. - 2026-09-23 · The finding still stands that the case managers were closer than the model on the day that mattered most. - 2026-09-26 · The study's finding still stands. Case managers were closer than the model on the last day. - 2026-09-29 · The published result holds. On the final day the case managers' calls were closer than the discharge model's. - 2026-10-02 · The published comparison still stands, with the case managers closer than the model on the last day. - 2026-10-05 · Houston Methodist's own account still has its case managers beating the discharge AI on the last day. - 2026-10-08 · Houston Methodist's own account still has its case managers outperforming the discharge AI on the final day. - 2026-10-11 · Houston Methodist's account still has case managers beating the discharge AI on the final day. - 2026-10-15 · Houston Methodist's account still has its case managers beating the discharge AI on the last day. - 2026-10-18 · Houston Methodist's account still has its case managers outperforming the discharge AI on the last day. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · The case managers' result against Houston Methodist's discharge AI is unconfirmed today, since the journal page answered with a browser check instead of the article. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The study reports how often each method landed within a day of the true discharge date in the last 24 hours. > At 24 hours, 79.5% of case manager estimations fell within 1 day vs 37.9% for AI estimations Source (primary_official): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13543018/ ### The study states where the encounters came from and over what period. > This quality improvement study included inpatient encounters at Houston Methodist Hospital with discharge dates between August 1, 2023, and February 28, 2024. Source (primary_official): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13543018/ ### The study describes what produced the AI dates, without naming a vendor or a product. > Artificial intelligence–estimated discharge dates were generated by a commercial clinician-assisted tool integrated with the EHR. Source (primary_official): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13543018/ ### The study states its own finding, and names the moment an accurate estimate is most useful for bed management. > This quality improvement study found that AI-estimated discharge was comparable to usual care at admission but outperformed by case managers as discharge approached (when accurate estimations are most actionable for bed management). Source (primary_official): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13543018/ ### The study warns against reading the admission result as evidence the tool knows what a clinician knows. > The strong admission correlation did not persist nearer discharge and should not be interpreted as evidence that the tool captured the same information clinicians use throughout the stay. Source (primary_official): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13543018/ ### The study names the limitation that cuts hardest against its own headline, which is that the case managers' own estimates were visible to the people acting on them. > Case manager estimates were part of usual care and visible to care teams, so they may be partly self-fulfilling and, thus, advantaged nearer discharge; AI estimations were accessible in the EHR but not enabled automatically. Source (primary_official): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13543018/ ### The study says what would have to happen before anyone concludes the tool is worth its implementation. > Whether the AI’s incremental accuracy in selected subgroups justifies the complexity of implementation warrants prospective, outcome-based evaluation. Source (primary_official): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13543018/ ### The study reports the mean absolute error of each method at each of the three points it measured. > Nearer to discharge, case managers vs AI were more accurate (48 hours: MAE, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.26-1.32] vs 1.59 [95% CI 1.57-1.61] days; 24 hours: MAE, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.96-1.01] vs 1.93 [95% CI, 1.91-1.95] days) (both P < .001). Source (primary_official): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13543018/ --- # Lubbock starts the procedure for a 90 day data center moratorium after the 18 month petition fails The Lubbock City Council held a public hearing on September 8th, 2026 on a citizen petition brought under the city charter. The petition asked for an 18 month moratorium on high water use and high energy use data centers inside the city. The same agenda carried a separate resolution stating the council's desire that large scale data centers not be developed inside the municipal limits. On September 22nd, 2026 the council began the procedure to adopt a 90 day moratorium. It would cover rezoning, building permit and annexation requests tied to large scale data centers. The petition's 18 month version failed without a second. The moratorium is not in force yet. It needs two public hearings before it can be declared. - Topic: data-centers - Decided by: Lubbock City Council (city) - Where: Lubbock - Statistical areas: - Lubbock, TX - Status: pending - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://www.mylubbock.us/AgendaCenter - Last checked: 2026-10-20 ## Dates - 2026-09-08 · hearing: Public hearing on the charter petition, and the resolution taken up beside it - 2026-09-22 · ordered: The council began the procedure for a 90 day moratorium, and the 18 month petition failed without a second ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-09 · Admitted on the council's own agenda for the hearing. The resolution states a desire and no ordinance has followed it. - 2026-09-12 · The Lubbock resolution still states a desire and no ordinance has followed it. The council agenda that carried the petition reads as it did. - 2026-09-13 · The council's own agenda for the hearing still carries the moratorium as a public hearing and the resolution as a separate item expressing a desire. No ordinance has followed it. - 2026-09-16 · Lubbock's council has still only heard the petition for a moratorium and has adopted nothing binding on data centers. Nothing further has been scheduled. - 2026-09-19 · The council has taken no action on the petition, so the moratorium it asks for is still nobody's proposal. - 2026-09-24 · Whether the council has acted on the petition is unconfirmed this run. The city's own agenda could not be read again. - 2026-09-26 · The council began the procedure for a 90 day moratorium on data center rezoning, permits and annexation, and the petition's 18 month version failed without a second. The moratorium still needs two public hearings before it takes hold. - 2026-09-29 · Lubbock's moratorium procedure is under way, and the council has not yet held the hearings it requires before a pause takes effect. - 2026-10-02 · Lubbock's council papers still carry the first step toward a data center moratorium. A local news account of the vote bars automated readers. - 2026-10-05 · Lubbock's September 8th agenda record still carries the failed petition and the council's resolution. The 90 day moratorium still needs its public hearings before it takes effect. - 2026-10-08 · The public radio account of Lubbock's first step toward a pause still reads as cited. The city's own agenda record is unconfirmed, because the city's site refused the request. - 2026-10-09 · The published accounts of Lubbock's first step toward a pause still read as cited. The city's own agenda refused the request, so its record is unconfirmed. - 2026-10-14 · The public radio account still reads as cited, with the pause started and not yet declared. The city's own agenda record and the television station's report are unconfirmed, since the city's site refused the request and the station's site bars automated readers. - 2026-10-17 · Public radio's account still has Lubbock's pause started and not yet declared. The city's own agenda record and the television report are unconfirmed, since the city's site refused the request and the station bars automated readers. - 2026-10-20 · Public radio's account still reads as a pause Lubbock has begun and not yet declared, with hearings to come. The city's agenda record and the station report remain unconfirmed. - 2026-10-23 · Public radio's account and the city's agenda record are unconfirmed today, since the city's site refused the request. The record still holds Lubbock's pause as begun and not yet declared. - 2026-10-24 · Lubbock's procedure toward a data center moratorium is unconfirmed today, since the city's agenda refused the request and the station's site bars automated readers. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The agenda states what the public hearing was on, and under which part of the city charter it was held. > Public Hearing - City Secretary: Conduct a public hearing in accordance with Chapter 1, Article IV, Section 1 of the City of Lubbock Charter, regarding an "18-month moratorium on high-water-use and high-energy-use data centers in the City of Lubbock, Lubbock County, Texas." Source (primary_official): https://www.mylubbock.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_09082026-225 ### The agenda states what the resolution beside it would do, and what it waits on. > Resolution - City Council: Consider a resolution expressing the City Council's desire that large-scale data centers not be developed within the municipal limits of the City of Lubbock, until the City Council has adopted regulations protecting public resources and the public health and safety. Source (primary_official): https://www.mylubbock.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_09082026-225 ### A speaker at the hearing said the pause the petition asked for was not what she wanted. > I don't want an 18-month moratorium. I want us to collectively say no to this. Source (journalism): https://www.fox34.com/2026/09/09/lubbock-city-council-passes-non-binding-resolution-regarding-data-centers-within-city-limits/ ### The council began the procedure to adopt a 90 day moratorium on data center rezoning, building permits and annexation requests. > In its Tuesday meeting, Lubbock's city council initiated the procedure to adopt a 90-day moratorium "on the acceptance, processing, and/or approval of any applications for rezoning, building permits, or any request for annexation related to the development of large-scale data centers." Source (journalism): https://www.tpr.org/news/2026-09-23/lubbock-takes-first-step-toward-data-center-moratorium-questions-remain-with-approaching-legislative-session ### The petition's 18 month moratorium failed without a second. > The 18-month moratorium did not go to an official vote from the council, as it failed without a second. Source (journalism): https://www.tpr.org/news/2026-09-23/lubbock-takes-first-step-toward-data-center-moratorium-questions-remain-with-approaching-legislative-session ### The moratorium needs two public hearings before it can be declared. > Before the moratorium can be officially declared, it needs to go through two public hearings and is expected to take another 90 days before officially kicking in. Source (journalism): https://www.tpr.org/news/2026-09-23/lubbock-takes-first-step-toward-data-center-moratorium-questions-remain-with-approaching-legislative-session --- # The grid operator sets an October 6th workshop on how it would curtail a large load under Senate Bill 6 ERCOT issued a market notice on September 2nd, 2026 setting a workshop for October 6th. The workshop presents the deployment mechanics, the registration process and the draft revision requests for curtailing large loads under Senate Bill 6. The notice names the three provisions the bill put into the Public Utility Regulatory Act. One lets the commission require a large load co-located with an existing generation resource to reduce consumption during certain events. One lets the grid operator require a large load with backup generation serving at least half its load to curtail grid consumption to head off an emergency. One requires the commission to establish a large load demand management service. The workshop is the step where a legal authority becomes a registry and a piece of software. - Topic: power-and-the-grid - Decided by: Electric Reliability Council of Texas (state-agency) - Where: Statewide - Status: pending - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://www.ercot.com/services/comm/mkt_notices/M-A090226-01 - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-09-02 · filed: Market notice issued to large load customers and scheduling entities - 2026-10-06 · hearing: Workshop on the proposed large load curtailment framework ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-09 · Admitted on the market notice. The draft revision requests it previews have not been filed. - 2026-09-12 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-09-16 · The grid operator's workshop on curtailing a large load under Senate Bill 6 is still set for October 6th. The agenda has not changed. - 2026-09-19 · The workshop on curtailing a large load is still set, and the operator has published no method ahead of it. - 2026-09-23 · The October 6th workshop is still on the calendar and the curtailment question is still unanswered. - 2026-09-26 · The grid operator's workshop on curtailing a large load is still on the calendar. - 2026-09-29 · The grid operator's workshop on curtailing a large load under Senate Bill 6 is still on its calendar. - 2026-09-30 · The grid operator's calendar still carries the workshop on curtailing a large load under Senate Bill 6. - 2026-10-01 · The grid operator's notice still sets the October 6th workshop on how a large load would be curtailed under Senate Bill 6. - 2026-10-02 · The grid operator's workshop on curtailing a large load under Senate Bill 6 is still set for October 6th. - 2026-10-03 · The grid operator's workshop on curtailing a large load is still set as noticed, with no change to the date. - 2026-10-04 · The grid operator's October 6th workshop on curtailment is still set, and nothing has moved on it since it was noticed. - 2026-10-05 · ERCOT's workshop on curtailing a large load under Senate Bill 6 is still set for October 6th. - 2026-10-06 · The grid operator's workshop on curtailing large loads still stands on its calendar for today, October 6th. - 2026-10-09 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-10-12 · The grid operator's workshop date on large load curtailment has passed. The notice that set it still reads as posted. - 2026-10-15 · The notice that set ERCOT's large load curtailment workshop reads as posted. The workshop date has passed. - 2026-10-18 · The notice that set ERCOT's workshop on curtailing a large load still reads as posted. The workshop has passed. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-10-24 · The grid operator's notice of its workshop on curtailing large loads under Senate Bill 6 still reads as posted. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The notice states what the workshop will cover and when it is. > On October 6, 2026 ERCOT will host a workshop to present the deployment mechanics, registration process, and draft revision requests for Large Load curtailment under Senate Bill 6 (SB6). Source (primary_official): https://www.ercot.com/services/comm/mkt_notices/M-A090226-01 ### The notice names who it is addressed to. > Large Load Customers, Qualified Scheduling Entities, Transmission Service Providers and other interested stakeholders Source (primary_official): https://www.ercot.com/services/comm/mkt_notices/M-A090226-01 ### The notice states the three things the bill put into the statute, including the backup generation threshold. > SB6 established several provisions in PURA related to Large Loads, including an authorization for the PUC to require Large Loads that co-locate with existing Generation Resources to reduce consumption during certain events (section 39.169); an authorization for ERCOT to require Large Loads with backup generation serving at least 50% of their load to curtail their grid consumption when necessary to mitigate actual or potential EEA conditions (section 37.0561(e)); and a requirement for the PUC to establish a large load demand management service (section 39.170). Source (primary_official): https://www.ercot.com/services/comm/mkt_notices/M-A090226-01 ### The notice states its own subject in one line. > Workshop to share proposed operational framework for implementing SB6-related Large Load curtailments, including registration requirements Source (primary_official): https://www.ercot.com/services/comm/mkt_notices/M-A090226-01 --- # Federal regulators open an audit of how Tesla certified the Cybercab, on the day commercial deployment began in Austin The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration opened Audit Query AQ26002 on September 3rd, 2026, the same day Tesla began commercial deployment of the Cybercab in Austin. The agency records that the vehicles lack permanently attached, conventional manual controls, naming a brake pedal, a gas pedal, a steering wheel and mirrors. Tesla certified the vehicle itself as meeting every applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard and told the agency it had done so. The audit does not ask how the vehicle drives. It examines the process and the technical data behind that certification. The agency says it will consider how far that certification rested on Tesla deciding that certain standards do not apply. The vehicle was built without the controls those standards were written for. The estimated population is a thousand vehicles and Tesla has told the agency it plans to add more vehicles and more locations. - Topic: defense-and-federal - Decided by: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Defects Investigation (federal) - Where: Travis - Statistical areas: - Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX - Status: open - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2026/INOA-AQ26002-17078.pdf - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-09-03 · filed: Audit Query AQ26002 opened, and commercial deployment began in Austin the same day ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-10 · The agency's opening resume is published and carries the docket number, the date, the estimated population and the scope in the agency's own words. The audit is open and nothing has been reported closed. - 2026-09-10 · Corrected. The claim naming the two officials on the resume called one of them the approver. The resume's own words are Reviewer, and the claim now reads reviewer. The access note advertised filing a vehicle safety complaint. No source here describes that route. The note now says what the link reaches. - 2026-09-13 · The audit resume is unchanged. It still names the certification process rather than the driving as its subject, and which standards the company treated as inapplicable is still an open question. - 2026-09-16 · The audit of how the Cybercab was certified is still open, and commercial deployment in Austin is still running while it is. Neither has changed. - 2026-09-19 · The audit of how the vehicle was certified is still open, and the deployment it began beside is still running. - 2026-09-23 · The federal audit of how that vehicle was certified is still open. - 2026-09-26 · The federal audit of how the Cybercab was certified is still open. - 2026-09-29 · NHTSA's audit of how Tesla certified the Cybercab has published no conclusion. - 2026-10-02 · NHTSA's audit of how Tesla certified the Cybercab still has no published conclusion. - 2026-10-05 · The federal audit of how Tesla certified the Cybercab is still open, with no finding published. - 2026-10-08 · The federal audit of Tesla's Cybercab certification is still open with no finding. - 2026-10-11 · The federal audit of how Tesla certified the Cybercab is still open with no finding. - 2026-10-15 · The federal audit of how Tesla certified the Cybercab remains open with no finding. - 2026-10-18 · The federal audit of how Tesla certified the Cybercab remains open, with no finding. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. Still open, with no dated movement. - 2026-10-24 · The federal audit of how Tesla certified the Cybercab still reads as opened. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The agency's own resume gives the audit its docket number and its subject. > Investigation: AQ26002 Source (primary_official): https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2026/INOA-AQ26002-17078.pdf ### The resume dates the opening of the audit. > Date Opened: 09/03/2026 Source (primary_official): https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2026/INOA-AQ26002-17078.pdf ### The resume estimates how many vehicles the audit covers. > Population: 1,000 (Estimated) Source (primary_official): https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2026/INOA-AQ26002-17078.pdf ### The resume states what the audit is examining. > Examination of the process and technical data on which Tesla relied when certifying the Cybercab and related issues. Source (primary_official): https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2026/INOA-AQ26002-17078.pdf ### The resume says where and when the deployment began. > On September 3, 2026, Tesla began commercial deployment with a small number of its Cybercab vehicles in Austin, Texas. Source (primary_official): https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2026/INOA-AQ26002-17078.pdf ### The resume records that the manufacturer certified the vehicle itself. > Tesla notified the Agency that it certified those Cybercab vehicles as compliant with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). Source (primary_official): https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2026/INOA-AQ26002-17078.pdf ### The resume lists the controls the vehicle does not have. > The vehicles lack permanently attached, conventional manual controls, such as a brake pedal, gas pedal, steering wheel, and mirrors. Source (primary_official): https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2026/INOA-AQ26002-17078.pdf ### The resume names the question about which standards were treated as inapplicable. > Among other things, NHTSA will consider the extent to which Tesla’s certification depended on determinations that certain FMVSS are inapplicable to the Cybercab. Source (primary_official): https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2026/INOA-AQ26002-17078.pdf ### The resume records what the manufacturer says comes next. > Tesla also notified the Agency that it plans to gradually expand commercial deployment of the Cybercab to include additional vehicles and locations. Source (primary_official): https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2026/INOA-AQ26002-17078.pdf ### The resume names what prompted the audit. > Prompted By: Public Information Source (primary_official): https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2026/INOA-AQ26002-17078.pdf ### The resume names the action the office took. > Action: Open Audit Query (AQ) Source (primary_official): https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2026/INOA-AQ26002-17078.pdf ### The resume names the investigator and the reviewer. > Investigator: Syed Rahaman Reviewer: Neil Dold Source (primary_official): https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2026/INOA-AQ26002-17078.pdf --- # UT San Antonio builds a solar powered flood sensor that runs its model on the chip rather than in the cloud The University of Texas at San Antonio published on September 28th, 2026 that it has a field ready prototype flood warning node. The node is for street level water and the team is led by Chen Pan. It harvests its own solar power and carries temperature, humidity, light and precipitation sensing plus four optical water level sensors at different heights. It runs a compressed machine learning model on the microcontroller itself rather than sending readings to a server. It reports over long range radio instead of a cell tower, so it keeps warning when the grid and the network are down, which is when the water rises. The work was funded in part by a Texas Coastal Management Program grant from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It is a prototype and the announcement names no place that has installed one. - Topic: research-and-science - Decided by: The University of Texas at San Antonio (state-agency) - Where: Bexar - Statistical areas: - San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://news.utsa.edu/2026/09/ut-san-antonio-researcher-builds-self-powered-smart-warning-system-to-catch-local-floods-before-disaster-strikes/ - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-09-28 · filed: The university published the prototype and its funding source ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-10 · The university's account is published and names the researchers, the sensing package, where the model runs and the federal program that funded the work. It is a prototype and no installation site is named. - 2026-09-13 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-09-16 · The UT San Antonio flood sensor that runs its model on the chip is still described that way by the university. Nothing has moved the work off the device. - 2026-09-18 · Re-verified against the university's own account and two quotes were added, the off-grid description and the definition of the compression method that lets the model run on a microcontroller. This decision was also admitted a second time on the same day. That duplicate came off the same article reached over http rather than https, and it was removed before it reached the record. A code review caught it. Nothing in the admission phase did, because the dedupe compares entities and keywords rather than normalized source URLs. - 2026-09-19 · The sensor stands as built, running its model on the chip rather than sending readings away to be judged. This decision was admitted a second time again today, off the same article over http rather than https, and the duplicate was removed before it reached the record. A code review caught it, twice now, and the admission phase caught it neither time. The dedupe compares entities and keywords and never a normalized source URL, so one article at two schemes reads as two decisions. The fix is a normalized URL check in the admission phase. - 2026-09-23 · The San Antonio flood sensor still runs its model on the chip, which is what lets it work where there is no network. - 2026-09-26 · The San Antonio flood sensor still runs its model on the chip, which is what lets it work without a network. - 2026-09-29 · UTSA's solar flood sensor still runs its model on the chip, with no cloud connection needed. - 2026-10-02 · UTSA's solar flood sensor still runs its model on the chip with no cloud link. - 2026-10-05 · UT San Antonio's solar powered flood sensor still runs its model on the chip, and it is still a prototype. - 2026-10-08 · UT San Antonio's flood sensor is still a prototype that runs its model on the chip. - 2026-10-09 · UT San Antonio's news site now carries the same prototype account under a September 28th date, with the same sensors, model, validation and funding. - 2026-10-11 · UT San Antonio's account of its solar flood sensor running the model on the chip is unchanged. - 2026-10-12 · The university's account is dated September 28th, 2026 on its own page, so the record's publication date now reads September 28th rather than September 8th. - 2026-10-15 · UT San Antonio's account of a solar flood sensor running its model on the chip reads as published. - 2026-10-18 · UT San Antonio still describes its solar flood sensor as running its model on the chip. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · UT San Antonio's solar powered flood sensor still runs its model on the chip rather than in the cloud. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The university describes what the system is. > Researchers at The University of Texas at San Antonio have developed a self-sustaining, artificial intelligence-powered flood warning system designed to spot dangerous water accumulation at the street level. Source (primary_official): https://news.utsa.edu/2026/09/ut-san-antonio-researcher-builds-self-powered-smart-warning-system-to-catch-local-floods-before-disaster-strikes/ ### The announcement names the researcher leading the work and his college. > Led by Chen Pan , PhD, assistant professor of electrical engineering in the Margie and Bill Klesse College of Engineering and Integrated Design, the team engineered a field-ready prototype that combines solar energy harvesting, multi-sensor environmental tracking, long-range wireless radios and on-device machine learning. Source (primary_official): https://news.utsa.edu/2026/09/ut-san-antonio-researcher-builds-self-powered-smart-warning-system-to-catch-local-floods-before-disaster-strikes/ ### The researcher states why the system carries its own power. > In many rural areas or coastal communities, power infrastructure can fail right when severe weather strikes, Source (primary_official): https://news.utsa.edu/2026/09/ut-san-antonio-researcher-builds-self-powered-smart-warning-system-to-catch-local-floods-before-disaster-strikes/ ### The announcement states where the model runs. > This on-device AI evaluates current and recent sensor data to predict localized, imminent flood risk without relying on a central server. Source (primary_official): https://news.utsa.edu/2026/09/ut-san-antonio-researcher-builds-self-powered-smart-warning-system-to-catch-local-floods-before-disaster-strikes/ ### The announcement gives the accuracy figure and says what kind of figure it is. > So far, the AI has performed well, achieving 98.82% validation accuracy in initial assessments post-training. Source (primary_official): https://news.utsa.edu/2026/09/ut-san-antonio-researcher-builds-self-powered-smart-warning-system-to-catch-local-floods-before-disaster-strikes/ ### The announcement names the federal program that paid for it. > This project was funded in part by a Texas Coastal Management Program grant awarded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Source (primary_official): https://news.utsa.edu/2026/09/ut-san-antonio-researcher-builds-self-powered-smart-warning-system-to-catch-local-floods-before-disaster-strikes/ ### The announcement says what the sensing package carries. > The resulting prototype combines temperature, humidity, light and precipitation sensing, as well as four optical water-level sensors mounted at varying heights. Source (primary_official): https://news.utsa.edu/2026/09/ut-san-antonio-researcher-builds-self-powered-smart-warning-system-to-catch-local-floods-before-disaster-strikes/ ### The announcement names the problem the existing gauges have. > Existing commercial flood-monitoring stations also come with drawbacks, from prohibitively high costs to reliance on grid power or frequent battery replacements, which leaves them vulnerable during multi-day storms or power outages. Source (primary_official): https://news.utsa.edu/2026/09/ut-san-antonio-researcher-builds-self-powered-smart-warning-system-to-catch-local-floods-before-disaster-strikes/ ### The researcher states what the system does without outside power or a network. > Our system is an off-grid solution. It generates its own power, evaluates flood risk locally right on the device and sends timely warnings without needing external electricity or expensive network lines. Source (primary_official): https://news.utsa.edu/2026/09/ut-san-antonio-researcher-builds-self-powered-smart-warning-system-to-catch-local-floods-before-disaster-strikes/ ### The account describes the method that lets the model run on the node. > a branch of computer science that compresses machine learning algorithms so they can run directly on small, low-power microcontrollers Source (primary_official): https://news.utsa.edu/2026/09/ut-san-antonio-researcher-builds-self-powered-smart-warning-system-to-catch-local-floods-before-disaster-strikes/ --- # The board takes a required high school money course to final adoption, and the text it published names AI tools in three of its chapters The State Board of Education took the new Applied Personal Financial Literacy standards to second reading and final adoption. Its item for that is dated September 4th, 2026, and it publishes one attachment. That text tells a student to research career pathways using artificial intelligence tools. It tells the same student to explain how algorithm driven recommendations influence spending. It then asks that student to appraise automated investment platforms by analyzing their algorithmic limitations. Districts implement the course beginning with the school year that opens in 2027. The board found that the rule takes effect 20 days after filing with the Texas Register. - Topic: health-and-education - Decided by: Texas State Board of Education (state-agency) - Where: Statewide - Status: decided - Public access: Closed - Take part: https://sboe.texas.gov/state-board-of-education/sboe-2026/sboe-2026-september/august-31-2026-committee-of-the-full-board-item-3 - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-09-04 · decided: The date line the board's second reading and final adoption item prints above the two bodies listed as acting on it ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-11 · Admitted to the record. The second reading and final adoption item publishes one attachment and that text carries artificial intelligence tools, algorithm driven recommendations and automated investment platforms in three separate chapters. The rule as filed with the Texas Register has not been read, so whether that language survived the filing is unconfirmed. - 2026-09-11 · Corrected on the day it was admitted. The title had said Texas writes AI tools into a required course, which states what the adopted rule contains. What is established is the action and the text the item publishes, and the attachment heads itself as proposed text. The title now says so. The status still reads decided because the adoption itself is confirmed by the board's own release. - 2026-09-13 · The board's item still stands as second reading and final adoption, and the published text still carries the expectations that name a machine. - 2026-09-16 · The board's final adoption of the money course still stands, and the standards it adopted still name a machine in the places the record quotes. Nothing has reopened the rule. - 2026-09-19 · The course is still adopted for final reading and the published text still names a machine among the things a student is expected to do. - 2026-09-24 · The adopted course text still names artificial intelligence tools among what a student is expected to understand about money. - 2026-09-27 · The board's adopted course text still names artificial intelligence tools among what a student learns about money. - 2026-09-30 · The board's agenda item still carries the money course to second reading and final adoption. - 2026-10-03 · The board's agenda item still carries the money course to final adoption, with the published text that names AI tools. - 2026-10-06 · The board's final adoption of the high school money course still stands as recorded. - 2026-10-09 · The board's record still shows the high school money course adopted, AI tools named in the published text. - 2026-10-12 · The high school money course stands as finally adopted, AI tools named in its published text. - 2026-10-15 · The board's published text for the high school money course still names AI tools. - 2026-10-18 · The adopted course text and the board's release still name AI tools in the high school money course. The motion text is unconfirmed. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · The board's published text for the required money course still names AI tools in three of its chapters. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The board's motion put the new course standards to second reading and final adoption and set when the rule takes effect. > Approve for second reading and final adoption proposed new 19 TAC Chapter 113, Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Social Studies, Subchapter C, High School, §113.26, Applied Personal Financial Literacy, (One-Half Credit), Adopted 2026; and Make an affirmative finding that immediate adoption of proposed new 19 TAC Chapter 113, Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Social Studies, Subchapter C, High School, §113.26, Applied Personal Financial Literacy, (One-Half Credit), Adopted 2026, is necessary and shall have an effective date of 20 days after filing with the Texas Register. Source (primary_official): https://sboe.texas.gov/state-board-of-education/sboe-2026/sboe-2026-september/august-31-2026-committee-of-the-full-board-item-3 ### The standard tells a student to use artificial intelligence tools as one of the ways they research a career. > research career pathways using labor-market data, online resources, and artificial intelligence tools to evaluate income growth, employment trends, global competition, comparative advantage, technological change, creative destruction, required skills, and possible employers (E, S); Source (primary_official): https://sboe.texas.gov/state-board-of-education/sboe-2026/sboe-2026-june/1cofb3-chap11326-applied-pfl-attach.pdf ### The same standard tells the student to explain how an algorithm driven recommendation moves their spending. > explain how consumerism and marketing strategies, including social media influencers, algorithm-driven recommendations, financial technology platforms, and traditional advertising, influence spending behavior and financial decision-making (Geo/C, E, S); Source (primary_official): https://sboe.texas.gov/state-board-of-education/sboe-2026/sboe-2026-june/1cofb3-chap11326-applied-pfl-attach.pdf ### A third expectation asks the student to judge an automated adviser by what its algorithm can't do. > appraise responsible use of financial technology through automated investment platforms, including robot-advisors and micro-investing apps, by analyzing fee structures, investment strategies, algorithmic limitations, and suitability for different investor profiles (E, S); Source (primary_official): https://sboe.texas.gov/state-board-of-education/sboe-2026/sboe-2026-june/1cofb3-chap11326-applied-pfl-attach.pdf ### The standard names the school year districts must be teaching it by. > The provisions of this section shall be implemented by school districts beginning with the 2027-2028 school year. Source (primary_official): https://sboe.texas.gov/state-board-of-education/sboe-2026/sboe-2026-june/1cofb3-chap11326-applied-pfl-attach.pdf ### The course carries half a credit. > Students shall be awarded one-half credit for successful completion of this course. Source (primary_official): https://sboe.texas.gov/state-board-of-education/sboe-2026/sboe-2026-june/1cofb3-chap11326-applied-pfl-attach.pdf ### The board's own announcement of the meeting states what the new standards teach and does not mention artificial intelligence. > The new TEKS will teach students how to set goals, budget, save, invest, develop business plans and more. Source (primary_official): https://sboe.texas.gov/state-board-of-education/sboe-news/texas-state-board-of-education-completes-k-12-social-studies-teks-revision-adopts-new-personal-financial-literacy-standards ### The statute the board acts under makes it responsible for graduation requirements. > requires the State Board of Education (SBOE) to establish curriculum and graduation requirements. Source (primary_official): https://sboe.texas.gov/state-board-of-education/sboe-2026/sboe-2026-september/august-31-2026-committee-of-the-full-board-item-3 ### The statute treats the half credit in personal financial literacy as a curriculum requirement a student must comply with. > requires the SBOE to allow a student to comply with the curriculum requirement for a one-half credit in personal financial literacy by successfully completing an advanced placement (AP) course Source (primary_official): https://sboe.texas.gov/state-board-of-education/sboe-2026/sboe-2026-september/august-31-2026-committee-of-the-full-board-item-3 ### The board item names the attachment it publishes as the text of the proposed new section. > Attachment: Text of Proposed New 19 TAC Chapter 113 Source (primary_official): https://sboe.texas.gov/state-board-of-education/sboe-2026/sboe-2026-september/august-31-2026-committee-of-the-full-board-item-3 ### The item records that the text changed after first reading. > Changes are recommended since approved for first reading. Source (primary_official): https://sboe.texas.gov/state-board-of-education/sboe-2026/sboe-2026-september/august-31-2026-committee-of-the-full-board-item-3 --- # ERCOT starts sending the Batch Zero questionnaires, and a data center that does not answer comes off the list ERCOT issued a market notice on September 9th, 2026. It states that the grid operator has begun sending Batch Zero Verification Requests for Information. They go to a majority of the large load entities whose loads were conditionally included in Batch Zero. The notice states that completing the verification is a condition of staying in Batch Zero. Batch Zero is the group of large loads whose place in the interconnection study was frozen pending the audit the Governor directed in August. - Topic: power-and-the-grid - Decided by: Electric Reliability Council of Texas (state-agency) - Where: Statewide - Status: pending - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://www.ercot.com/services/comm/mkt_notices/M-A090926-01 - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-09-09 · filed: Market notice issued ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-11 · Admitted to the record. The grid operator has moved from announcing the audit to running it. The notice states plainly that a load which does not complete the verification loses its place in Batch Zero. - 2026-09-13 · The notice still says a load that does not complete verification is excluded from the Batch Zero process, and the deadline it sets is unchanged. - 2026-09-16 · The Batch Zero questionnaires are still going out, and a data center that does not answer still comes off the list. The rule has not been softened. - 2026-09-19 · The questionnaires are still going out, and a data center that does not answer still comes off the list. - 2026-09-23 · The questionnaires are still going out, and silence still costs a project its place on the list. - 2026-09-26 · The Batch Zero questionnaires are still going out, and a data center that does not answer still comes off the list. - 2026-09-29 · ERCOT is still sending the Batch Zero questionnaires, and a data center that does not return one still loses its place on the list. - 2026-10-02 · ERCOT is still sending the Batch Zero questionnaires, and a data center that doesn't return one still comes off the list. - 2026-10-05 · ERCOT's Batch Zero questionnaires are still going out, and a data center that does not answer still comes off the study. - 2026-10-08 · ERCOT is still sending its Batch Zero questionnaires, and a data center that doesn't answer still drops out of the study. - 2026-10-11 · ERCOT is still sending Batch Zero questionnaires. A data center that does not answer still leaves the study. - 2026-10-15 · ERCOT's Batch Zero questionnaire notice reads as issued, and a data center that does not answer still leaves the study. - 2026-10-18 · ERCOT's notice on the Batch Zero questionnaires reads as issued. A data center that does not answer still drops off the list. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-10-24 · The Batch Zero questionnaires still carry the same rule. A data center that does not answer comes off the list. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The grid operator states it has begun issuing the verification requests. > In accordance with this directive, ERCOT has begun issuing Batch Zero Verification Requests for Information (RFIs) to a majority of Interconnecting Large Load Entities (ILLEs) with a Large Load that has been conditionally included in Batch Zero. Source (primary_official): https://www.ercot.com/services/comm/mkt_notices/M-A090926-01 ### Staying in Batch Zero depends on completing the verification. > Successful completion of the verification process is a condition for the Large Load's inclusion in Batch Zero. Source (primary_official): https://www.ercot.com/services/comm/mkt_notices/M-A090926-01 --- # Federal energy department opens comment on securing the grid and names AI as why demand grew, closing October 9th The Department of Energy published a request for information on September 9th, 2026. It implements an August 26th executive order on securing the United States bulk power system. The notice asks about covered equipment and transactions and about foreign produced bulk power system electric equipment. It also asks about remote access practices and federal procurement. The notice names advanced manufacturing and data centers and artificial intelligence and defense production as what increased the nation's dependence on reliable electricity. Written responses were accepted through October 9th, 2026 and a public webinar is set for September 16th. - Topic: defense-and-federal - Decided by: United States Department of Energy (federal) - Where: Statewide - Status: pending - Public access: Comment window open - Comment closes: 2026-10-09 - Take part: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/09/09/2026-18370/securing-the-united-states-bulk-power-system - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-09-09 · comment opens: Request for information published - 2026-09-16 · hearing: Public meeting by webinar, which falls before the comment deadline - 2026-10-09 · comment closes: Written responses due ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-11 · Admitted to the record. The window is open and dated, so a Texan who wants a say on how grid equipment and remote access get restricted has until October 9th to file. The notice itself never names Texas. - 2026-09-11 · The public webinar on September 16th is on the record's calendar now. It falls before the October 9th deadline and is the first thing a reader can attend. The calendar and the feeds read key dates rather than the access note. - 2026-09-12 · The comment window is still open, closing October 9th. - 2026-09-13 · The comment window is still open, closing October 9th. - 2026-09-14 · The request for information is still taking written responses through October 9th. The reason the notice gives for the demand it is securing against still names data centers and artificial intelligence. - 2026-09-15 · The request for information is still open for written responses through October 9th. The notice still names data centers and artificial intelligence among what it says increased the nation's dependence on this equipment. - 2026-09-16 · The energy department's grid security comment window is still open and still closes October 9th. The department still gives artificial intelligence as why demand grew. - 2026-09-19 · The window is still open and the department's own dates line still gives October 9th. A Texan who wants the grid rules to hear from them can still write. - 2026-09-23 · The federal comment window on securing the grid still closes October 9th, and the department still names growth in data centers and artificial intelligence as why demand rose. - 2026-09-26 · The energy department is still taking written responses on securing the grid through October 9th. The notice still names data centers and artificial intelligence among what raised the nation's need for reliable power. - 2026-09-29 · The comment window is still open, closing October 9th. The energy department's notice still names artificial intelligence among the reasons demand for reliable power grew. - 2026-10-02 · The energy department is still taking comment on securing the grid, until October 9th, and its notice still names AI among the drivers of demand. - 2026-10-03 · The energy department's comment window is still open, closing October 9th. The notice still names AI as a driver of demand growth. - 2026-10-04 · The department is still taking comment on securing the grid, and the window still closes October 9th. - 2026-10-05 · The Energy Department's comment window on securing the grid is still open. - 2026-10-06 · The energy department's comment window on securing the grid is still open, closing October 9th. - 2026-10-07 · The energy department's comment window on securing the grid is still open, closing October 9th. - 2026-10-08 · The energy department is still taking comment on securing the grid, through October 9th. - 2026-10-09 · The comment window is still open, closing October 9th. - 2026-10-12 · The comment window closed on October 9th. The proposal still reads as published. - 2026-10-15 · The proposal on securing the grid reads as published. Its comment window has closed. - 2026-10-18 · The proposal on securing the grid reads as published, and its comment window has closed. - 2026-10-21 · The comment window closed on October 9th. - 2026-10-24 · The energy department's comment window on grid security closed on October 9th. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The notice gives the date responses are due and the date of the public webinar. > Written responses, data, and information are requested and will be accepted on or before October 9, 2026. If you anticipate difficulty in submitting responses within that period, contact the person listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT as soon as possible. DOE will hold a public meeting via webinar on Wednesday, September 16, 2026, from 3 to 4 p.m. EDT. Source (primary_official): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-09-09/html/2026-18370.htm ### The department names artificial intelligence among the things that raised the country's demand for reliable electricity. > the rapid growth of advanced manufacturing, data centers, artificial intelligence, and defense production has increased the Nation's dependence on abundant, reliable electricity Source (primary_official): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-09-09/html/2026-18370.htm --- # Federal survey office asks whether the household internet survey should start measuring AI use, closing November 9th The National Telecommunications and Information Administration submitted its Internet Use Survey to the Office of Management and Budget for renewal on September 9th, 2026. It asked the public directly whether more data is needed on artificial intelligence. The notice names AI use at work or home and attitudes toward AI as areas it is asking about. Comments must be received on or before November 9th, 2026. - Topic: defense-and-federal - Decided by: National Telecommunications and Information Administration (federal) - Where: Statewide - Status: open - Public access: Comment window open - Comment closes: 2026-11-09 - Take part: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/09/09/2026-18303/agency-information-collection-activities-submission-to-the-office-of-management-and-budget-omb-for - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-09-09 · comment opens: Notice published - 2026-11-09 · comment closes: Comments due ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-11 · Admitted to the record. The agency is asking the public whether the household internet survey should start measuring artificial intelligence at all. Whether anyone can later count how many Texans use it is being decided in this window. - 2026-09-13 · The comment window on whether the household internet survey should measure artificial intelligence is still open on the close date the notice published. - 2026-09-16 · The household internet survey question on measuring artificial intelligence use is still open for comment until November 9th. Nothing has been withdrawn. - 2026-09-19 · The window is still open and the notice still gives November 9th as the last day a comment is sure to be read. - 2026-09-23 · The survey office is still asking whether the household internet survey should start measuring artificial intelligence, and the window still closes November 9th. - 2026-09-26 · The survey office is still taking comment through November 9th on whether its household internet survey should start asking about artificial intelligence. Both questions about AI use are still in the notice. - 2026-09-29 · The comment window is still open, closing November 9th. Both proposed questions on household use of artificial intelligence are still in the notice. - 2026-10-02 · The survey office is still taking comment until November 9th on adding household AI use to the internet survey. - 2026-10-05 · The federal survey office's comment window on measuring household AI use is still open. - 2026-10-08 · The federal survey office is still taking comment on how to measure household AI use, through November 9th. - 2026-10-11 · The survey office is still taking comment on measuring household AI use. The window closes November 9th. - 2026-10-15 · The survey office is still taking comment on measuring household AI use. - 2026-10-18 · The survey office is still taking comment on whether to measure household AI use. - 2026-10-21 · The comment window is still open, closing November 9th. - 2026-10-24 · The survey office's question on measuring household AI use is still open to comment, closing November 9th. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The notice gives the date comments are due. > To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before November 9, 2026. Source (primary_official): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-09-09/html/2026-18303.htm ### The agency puts the question to the public in as many words. > Is there a need for more data around artificial intelligence (AI)? Source (primary_official): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-09-09/html/2026-18303.htm ### The agency names the areas it is asking whether to measure. > Are there particular areas that need more data, such as AI use at work or home, or attitudes towards AI? Source (primary_official): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-09-09/html/2026-18303.htm --- # Amazon and Wiwynn say they will expand the El Paso County plant that builds the racks going into AI data centers Amazon and Wiwynn announced an expansion of Wiwynn's manufacturing operations in Socorro, the Taiwanese contract manufacturer's first plant in the United States. Wiwynn builds and integrates the server systems and racks that go into Amazon's data centers. Wiwynn's chief executive puts the investment at over 1.6 billion dollars and Amazon's vice president of Annapurna Labs states the number of advanced manufacturing roles it supports. Socorro is in El Paso County, which is the one corner of Texas that is not on the ERCOT grid. - Topic: data-centers - Decided by: Amazon.com, Inc. and Wiwynn Corporation (company) - Where: El Paso - Statistical areas: - El Paso, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/company-news/amazon-wiwynn-data-center-manufacturing-jobs-texas - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-09-10 · filed: Wiwynn's copy of the joint release carries this date ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-11 · Admitted to the record. The plant that builds the racks going into Amazon's data centers is being expanded. The release carries no publication date of its own, so the day it was announced is unconfirmed. - 2026-10-01 · Both copies of the release still announce the expansion. Wiwynn's copy carries a September 10th date, which is the day the record now gives for the announcement. - 2026-10-04 · Amazon and Wiwynn's stated expansion of the El Paso County plant still reads as announced. - 2026-10-07 · Amazon and Wiwynn's announced expansion of the El Paso County rack plant still reads as first published. - 2026-10-10 · The announced expansion of the El Paso County rack plant reads as Amazon and Wiwynn first published it. - 2026-10-15 · The announced expansion of the El Paso County rack plant reads as Amazon and Wiwynn published it. - 2026-10-18 · Amazon and Wiwynn's announced expansion of the El Paso County rack plant reads as before. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · Amazon and Wiwynn's plan to expand the El Paso County rack plant still stands as announced. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### Wiwynn's chief executive states the size of the investment in the Texas facility. > Through our over $1.6 billion investment in the Texas facility, we are expanding our ability to address the growing demand Source (primary_corporate): https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/company-news/amazon-wiwynn-data-center-manufacturing-jobs-texas ### Amazon states the number of manufacturing roles the investment supports. > supporting the creation of nearly 1,000 advanced manufacturing roles that will help strengthen both the Source (primary_corporate): https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/company-news/amazon-wiwynn-data-center-manufacturing-jobs-texas ### The release states what the plant makes for Amazon's data centers. > Wiwynn supports Amazon's data center infrastructure by manufacturing and integrating server systems and racks Source (primary_corporate): https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/company-news/amazon-wiwynn-data-center-manufacturing-jobs-texas ### The release names the town the plant is in. > Amazon and Wiwynn announced an expansion of Wiwynn's manufacturing operations in Socorro, Texas. Source (primary_corporate): https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/company-news/amazon-wiwynn-data-center-manufacturing-jobs-texas ### Wiwynn's own copy of the joint release carries a date. > Updated on September 10, 2026 Source (primary_corporate): https://www.wiwynn.com/news/amazon-wiwynn-data-center-manufacturing-jobs-texas ### Wiwynn states the employment the plant is expected to reach. > Together, the companies expect to create nearly 1,000 new advanced manufacturing jobs by the end of 2027. Source (primary_corporate): https://www.wiwynn.com/news/amazon-wiwynn-data-center-manufacturing-jobs-texas --- # El Paso City Council orders Flock plate reader cameras off city property and bars new contracts without a further vote The El Paso City Council took up two items filed by members of the council at its September 15th, 2026 meeting. The published minutes now carry what each amendment changed. The first directs the City Manager to remove every Flock Safety fixed automated license plate reader camera and its hardware from city property and right of way. It sets 60 days, whoever owns the equipment. An amendment adopted without dissent lets the city bag or cover any camera it can't remove in time, for 30 more days. After that all of the hardware must come down. The second directs the City Manager not to enter, renew or extend any contract for fixed networked plate reader cameras or similar technology unless the council directs otherwise later. An amendment adds that such a direction follows a proposal from the City Manager, the police department or a member of the council. That amendment split the council evenly and the mayor broke the tie. The City Attorney has 30 days to bring back a resolution carrying out the second item. El Paso sits outside the ERCOT region. - Topic: surveillance-and-policing - Decided by: El Paso City Council (city) - Where: El Paso - Statistical areas: - El Paso, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://elpasotexas.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1438138&GUID=311EC2E9-C010-4038-B718-400EE54FD9C2&Options=info|&Search= - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-09-15 · hearing: the council meeting at which both items are set - 2026-09-15 · decided: Council approved both items as revised ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-12 · Admitted on the council's own agenda for the September 15th meeting. Neither item has been voted on. - 2026-09-14 · Both items are still posted to the council's own agenda and neither has been voted on. Nothing has been added to the agenda that narrows what the two would do to the fixed plate reader cameras. - 2026-09-15 · Both items are still posted to the council's own agenda and the meeting they are set for is today. Neither has been voted on and nothing has been filed against either. - 2026-09-18 · The council voted and both items carried. The meeting record now marks each one approved as revised. That moves this from two posted agenda items to a direction the City Manager has been given. What the amendments changed is unconfirmed. The minutes are marked final and their text is not published yet. - 2026-09-18 · Reworded after a code review. The title and the opening stated the items as filed as though they were what the council enacted, and the approved-as-revised fact arrived fifth. The vote is confirmed and the amendment text is not published, so every directive is now marked as filed and the revision is the first thing a reader meets. No claim changed and nothing was added. - 2026-09-21 · Both plate reader items still stand approved as revised. The text of the floor amendments is still unpublished, so what the council changed before it voted stays off the public record. - 2026-09-24 · Both plate reader items remain approved as revised. The floor amendments are still unpublished, so what the council changed before voting is still not on the public record. - 2026-09-27 · The council's approval of both plate reader items still stands, and the text of the amendment is still unpublished. - 2026-09-30 · Both plate reader approvals still stand as the council voted them, and the amended text has still not been published. - 2026-10-03 · The council's minutes are now published and carry both amendments. Cameras the city can't remove in time may be covered for a further period before they come down. A later contract needs a proposal from the City Manager, the police department or a council member. The mayor broke a tie on that second amendment. - 2026-10-06 · El Paso's published minutes still carry the order taking Flock cameras off city property, both amendments included. - 2026-10-09 · El Paso's minutes still carry the order taking Flock cameras off city property and barring new contracts without a further vote. - 2026-10-12 · El Paso's order keeping Flock cameras off city property still stands, and a new contract still needs another council vote. - 2026-10-15 · El Paso's minutes still keep Flock cameras off city property and require another council vote for any new contract. - 2026-10-18 · El Paso's minutes still keep Flock cameras off city property and require another vote for a new contract. The meeting detail page is unconfirmed. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · El Paso's order taking Flock cameras off city property still stands, and new contracts still need a further vote. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The first item would direct the City Manager to remove every fixed plate reader camera from city property within 60 days. > Discussion and action directing the City Manager to ensure the removal, within 60 days, of all Flock Safety fixed automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras and related hardware located on or within City property, City right-of-way, or otherwise within the City's control, regardless of whether such cameras or hardware are owned by Flock Safety, the City of El Paso, or any third party, including by physically removing such equipment or coordinating its removal by the appropriate party. Source (primary_official): https://elpasotexas.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1438138&GUID=311EC2E9-C010-4038-B718-400EE54FD9C2&Options=info|&Search= ### The second item would bar a further plate reader contract without a council vote and give the City Attorney 30 days to draft a resolution. > Discussion and action directing the City Manager to refrain from entering into, executing, renewing, or extending any contract, agreement, or other arrangement with Flock Safety or any other provider for the acquisition, installation, operation, maintenance, or use of fixed, networked automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras or substantially similar technology, unless otherwise directed by subsequent action of the City Council; and directing the City Attorney to draft and return to the City Council within 30 days a resolution to further effectuate this direction. Source (primary_official): https://elpasotexas.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1438138&GUID=311EC2E9-C010-4038-B718-400EE54FD9C2&Options=info|&Search= ### The meeting is set for September 15th, 2026 at 9:00 AM and the agenda is final. > Agenda status: Final Meeting date/time: 9/15/2026 9:00 AM Source (primary_official): https://elpasotexas.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1438138&GUID=311EC2E9-C010-4038-B718-400EE54FD9C2&Options=info|&Search= ### The council's own meeting record carries the action taken on the removal item. > coordinating its removal by the appropriate party. Approved as Revised Pass Source (primary_official): https://elpasotexas.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1438138&GUID=311EC2E9-C010-4038-B718-400EE54FD9C2&Options=info|&Search= ### The same record carries the action taken on the contract item. > resolution to further effectuate this direction. Approved as Revised Pass Source (primary_official): https://elpasotexas.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1438138&GUID=311EC2E9-C010-4038-B718-400EE54FD9C2&Options=info|&Search= ### The minutes are marked final while their text is still unpublished. > Minutes status: Final Source (primary_official): https://elpasotexas.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1438138&GUID=311EC2E9-C010-4038-B718-400EE54FD9C2&Options=info|&Search= ### The council's meeting page now links the published minutes. > Published minutes: 09-15-2026 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes Source (primary_official): https://elpasotexas.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1438138&GUID=311EC2E9-C010-4038-B718-400EE54FD9C2&Options=info|&Search= ### The amendment to the removal item allows covered cameras for 30 more days if removal can't be finished in time. > If full removal of all Flock hardware is not possible within 60 days, enclosing the remaining cameras and all accessory hardware (with the exception of poles affixed to the ground) within fully opaque bags or covers that fully restrict their use is an acceptable interim alternative for an additional period of 30 days, after which all Flock hardware must be fully removed. Source (primary_official): https://elpasotexas.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=M&ID=1438138&GUID=311EC2E9-C010-4038-B718-400EE54FD9C2 ### The removal item as amended carried without dissent. > Motion made by Representative Canales, seconded by Representative Limón, and unanimously carried to DIRECT the City Manager to ensure the removal, within 60 days, of all Flock Safety fixed automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras Source (primary_official): https://elpasotexas.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=M&ID=1438138&GUID=311EC2E9-C010-4038-B718-400EE54FD9C2 ### The amendment to the contract item names who may bring a later proposal. > following a proposal or recommendation brought forward by the City Manager, the El Paso Police Department, or a member of the City Council Source (primary_official): https://elpasotexas.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=M&ID=1438138&GUID=311EC2E9-C010-4038-B718-400EE54FD9C2 ### The council split evenly on that amendment. > AYES: Representatives Chávez, Boyar Trejo, Niño, and Fierro NAYS: Representatives Acevedo, Maldonado-Rocha, Limón, and Canales Source (primary_official): https://elpasotexas.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=M&ID=1438138&GUID=311EC2E9-C010-4038-B718-400EE54FD9C2 ### The mayor broke the tie. > Mayor Johnson broke the tie by voting Source (primary_official): https://elpasotexas.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=M&ID=1438138&GUID=311EC2E9-C010-4038-B718-400EE54FD9C2 ### The contract item as amended carried without dissent. > Motion made by Representative Canales, seconded by Representative Limón, and unanimously carried to DIRECT the City Manager to refrain from entering into, executing, renewing, or extending any contract Source (primary_official): https://elpasotexas.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=M&ID=1438138&GUID=311EC2E9-C010-4038-B718-400EE54FD9C2 --- # Energy Department funds a synthetic underground test pit at a Navasota drilling site to prove out mining automation The Energy Department's Office of Critical Minerals and Energy Innovation named four mining proving ground projects on September 9th, 2026. One goes to Southern Methodist University, whose project location the announcement gives as Navasota, Texas. The department describes it as the world's first synthetic pit of its kind. It sits inside an existing instrumented drilling and sensing facility. Mining tools, workflows and automation systems can be tested repeatably in the field rather than only in a laboratory. The announcement states no dollar figure for the Texas project and never uses the words artificial intelligence, so what is funded here is automation testing rather than a model. - Topic: research-and-science - Decided by: U.S. Department of Energy (federal) - Where: Grimes - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://www.energy.gov/articles/does-office-critical-minerals-and-energy-innovation-announces-73-million-advance-domestic - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-09-09 · decided: the date the department announced the four projects ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-12 · Admitted on the department's own announcement of the four selected projects. - 2026-09-15 · The department's announcement still stands as published and still gives Navasota as the project location for the award it made to Southern Methodist University. Its description of the site as a synthetic pit inside an existing instrumented drilling and sensing facility has not changed. - 2026-09-18 · The department's announcement is unchanged. The Navasota site is still named among the proving grounds and still described as a synthetic pit inside an existing instrumented facility. It still carries no dollar figure and no mention of artificial intelligence. - 2026-09-21 · The department's list of mining proving ground projects still carries the Navasota site, and the university project attached to it is described the same way. Nothing has been added about when the test pit gets built. - 2026-09-24 · The department still lists the Navasota proving ground with the same university partner attached. No construction date for the test pit has appeared. - 2026-09-27 · The Energy Department's award for the Navasota test pit still stands as announced. - 2026-09-30 · The department's award for the synthetic test pit at the Navasota drilling site still stands as announced. - 2026-10-03 · The award for the synthetic test pit at the Navasota drilling site still reads as the department published it. - 2026-10-06 · The Energy Department's funding for the synthetic underground test pit at Navasota still stands as announced. - 2026-10-09 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-12 · The Energy Department's test pit award at the Navasota drilling site still stands as funded. - 2026-10-15 · The Energy Department's test pit award at the Navasota drilling site stands as funded. - 2026-10-18 · The Energy Department's award for a test pit at the Navasota drilling site still stands. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · The Energy Department's synthetic test pit at the Navasota drilling site is still funded. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The department gives Southern Methodist University's project location as Navasota, Texas. > Southern Methodist University (HQ: Dallas, TX, project location: Navasota, Texas) Source (primary_official): https://www.energy.gov/articles/does-office-critical-minerals-and-energy-innovation-announces-73-million-advance-domestic ### The project repurposes an instrumented Texas drilling site to test mining tools, workflows and automation systems. > This project will create the world's first synthetic mine within an advanced drilling and sensing test facility to accelerate next generation mining technologies from lab concepts to field ready deployment. By repurposing a highly instrumented Texas drilling site, it will enable rigorous, repeatable, and safe testing of mining tools, workflows, and automation systems. Source (primary_official): https://www.energy.gov/articles/does-office-critical-minerals-and-energy-innovation-announces-73-million-advance-domestic --- # Science foundation funds a Texas A&M engineering station to build AI digital twins of small water systems The National Science Foundation obligated an award to the Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station on September 9th, 2026. It sits in the Division of Civil, Mechanical, and Manufacturing Innovation. The work is to build AI-enabled digital twins that predict and manage cascading failures in freshwater infrastructure. The award record carries Artificial Intelligence among its programs. The performing site is College Station and the grant runs to August 31st, 2029. The abstract names no Texas utility. Which water system's data this reaches is not stated. - Topic: research-and-science - Decided by: National Science Foundation (federal) - Where: Brazos - Statistical areas: - College Station-Bryan, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards.json?id=2640086&printFields=id,title,abstractText,awardeeName,awardeeCity,date,startDate,expDate,fundsObligatedAmt,piFirstName,piLastName,perfCity,perfStateCode - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-09-09 · decided: the date the foundation obligated the award - 2029-08-31 · expires: the date the award record gives for expiry ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-12 · Admitted on the foundation's own award record. - 2026-09-15 · The award record still stands as obligated and still gives College Station as the performing site. It still names no Texas utility whose water system the digital twins would model. - 2026-09-18 · The award record still stands as obligated to the engineering experiment station, with the same College Station performing site and the same end date. The abstract still names no Texas utility, so which water system's data this work reaches is still unstated. - 2026-09-21 · The award still sits in the division that obligated it and its abstract still describes digital twins of small water systems. Neither the scope nor the recipient has moved. - 2026-09-24 · The award to the engineering station is unchanged in scope and in recipient. Its abstract still describes digital twins of small community water systems. - 2026-09-27 · The foundation's award for digital twins of small water systems still stands as made. - 2026-09-30 · The foundation's award to the engineering station for digital twins of small water systems still stands as made. - 2026-10-03 · The foundation's grant to the engineering station for digital twins of small water systems still stands as awarded. - 2026-10-06 · The foundation's award to the Texas A&M engineering station still stands as announced. - 2026-10-09 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-12 · The foundation's award to the Texas A&M engineering station for AI digital twins of small water systems still stands. - 2026-10-15 · The award to the Texas A&M engineering station for AI digital twins of small water systems still stands. - 2026-10-18 · The award to the Texas A&M engineering station for AI digital twins of small water systems still stands. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · The NSF award for AI digital twins of small water systems at the Texas A&M engineering station is still active. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The award funds research on an AI-enabled approach to predicting and mitigating cascading failures in freshwater infrastructure. > The objective of this project is to support research on a new AI-enabled cyber-physical-social paradigm for predicting, managing, and mitigating cascading disruptions in freshwater infrastructure systems. Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards.json?id=2640086&printFields=id,title,abstractText,awardeeName,awardeeCity,date,startDate,expDate,fundsObligatedAmt,piFirstName,piLastName,perfCity,perfStateCode ### The award is titled for AI-enabled digital twins of freshwater infrastructure. > Collaborative Research: AI-Enabled Digital Twins for Resilient Freshwater Infrastructure and Communities under Cascading Hazards Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards.json?id=2640086&printFields=id,title,abstractText,awardeeName,awardeeCity,date,startDate,expDate,fundsObligatedAmt,piFirstName,piLastName,perfCity,perfStateCode ### The award goes to the Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station and performs in College Station, Texas. > "perfCity":"COLLEGE STATION","perfCountryCode":"US","perfDistrict":"10","perfDistrictCode":"TX10","perfLocation":"Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station","perfStateCode":"TX" Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards.json?id=2640086&printFields=id,title,abstractText,awardeeName,awardeeCity,date,startDate,expDate,fundsObligatedAmt,piFirstName,piLastName,perfCity,perfStateCode --- # Texas Children's and UT Southwestern radiologists publish that imaging AI has largely skipped children An expert panel review in the American Journal of Roentgenology states that pediatric medical imaging remains substantially underrepresented across artificial intelligence in radiology. The panel means the development of models and their validation and their regulation and their use in the clinic. Two of its authors are Texas radiologists. One works in the radiology department shared by Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children's Hospital in Houston. The other is at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. The panel gives its reason plainly. Children go through continuous physiologic and anatomic changes that adults do not, so a model trained on adults is not the model a child needs. It names what holds pediatric work back. Public datasets are scarce and institutional data is fragmented and external validation is insufficient. It also names off-label use of adult-trained AI models among the ethical and regulatory concerns in children. The review is a recommendation document rather than a hospital policy. No Texas institution has published a purchasing change that follows from it. - Topic: health-and-education - Decided by: American Journal of Roentgenology Expert Panel, with radiologists at Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children's Hospital and at UT Southwestern Medical Center (company) - Where: Harris, Dallas - Statistical areas: - Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX - Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42714442/ - Last checked: 2026-10-07 ## Dates - 2026-09-09 · filed: Article date recorded by the National Library of Medicine for the online publication ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-13 · Admitted to the record. Texas radiologists at two of the state's largest institutions have put in print that imaging AI has largely skipped children. The same review names adult trained models being used on children off label. Nothing follows from the review on its own and no Texas hospital has published a change beside it. - 2026-09-16 · The finding that imaging artificial intelligence has largely skipped children is still published as written. No correction has appeared against it. - 2026-09-19 · The finding stands as published, and nothing has been announced to close the gap it names in imaging for children. - 2026-09-23 · The finding that imaging tools have largely skipped children still stands as published. - 2026-09-26 · The published finding that imaging AI has largely skipped children still stands. - 2026-09-29 · The paper by Texas Children's and UT Southwestern radiologists still finds imaging AI largely built without children. - 2026-10-02 · The panel's finding is unconfirmed this run. The abstract service bars automated readers and the article page shows no text to a reader without a script. - 2026-10-03 · The panel's finding is still unconfirmed. The abstract service bars automated readers and the article page shows no text without a script. - 2026-10-04 · The panel's recommendations still read as published in the abstract, including its call for an implementation framework and for reimbursement that allows the work to continue. - 2026-10-07 · The radiologists' published review and its Texas affiliations read as indexed, with nothing changed. - 2026-10-10 · The radiologists' published review is unconfirmed today, because the index that carries its abstract bars automated readers. - 2026-10-14 · The radiologists' published review stays unconfirmed, since the index that carries its abstract still bars automated readers. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The panel states that pediatric imaging is substantially underrepresented across the whole of AI in radiology. > Artificial intelligence (AI) applications have transformed radiology, yet pediatric medical imaging remains substantially underrepresented in AI development, validation, regulation, and implementation. Source (primary_official): https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/efetch.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=42714442&rettype=abstract&retmode=xml ### The panel's stated reason is that children change as they grow, so a model trained on adults is not the same model. > Unlike adults, children go through continuous physiologic and anatomic changes that require age-specific models trained on representative developmental data. Source (primary_official): https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/efetch.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=42714442&rettype=abstract&retmode=xml ### The panel names what pediatric AI is limited by. > However, pediatric AI is limited by scarce publicly available datasets, fragmented institutional data, rare diseases, heterogeneous reporting practices, and insufficient external validation. Source (primary_official): https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/efetch.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=42714442&rettype=abstract&retmode=xml ### Off-label use of a model trained on adults is named as an ethical and regulatory concern in children. > Ethical and regulatory challenges are also a concern in children, including consent for secondary data use, off-label use of adult-trained AI models, and the need for postdeployment surveillance. Source (primary_official): https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/efetch.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=42714442&rettype=abstract&retmode=xml ### The panel asks for a dedicated pediatric AI infrastructure and standards rather than for adult tools to be reused. > The panel gives key recommendations, emphasizing the importance of an implementation roadmap to establish a dedicated pediatric AI infrastructure and standards that are essential to ensure diagnostic accuracy, workflow efficiency, and optimal clinical outcomes for children while minimizing bias and protecting patient safety. Source (primary_official): https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/efetch.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=42714442&rettype=abstract&retmode=xml ### One of the review's authors is in the radiology department shared by Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children's Hospital in Houston. > Department of Radiology, Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, Texas, USA. Source (primary_official): https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/efetch.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=42714442&rettype=abstract&retmode=xml ### Another author is in the radiology department at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. > Department of Radiology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA. Source (primary_official): https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/efetch.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=42714442&rettype=abstract&retmode=xml ### The review names reimbursement as misaligned with what pediatric AI would need. > Additionally, reimbursement is misaligned and must be optimized to allow innovation. Source (primary_official): https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/efetch.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=42714442&rettype=abstract&retmode=xml --- # An MD Anderson and UT Medical Branch MRI model scored lower on patients it was not built on The authors include radiologists at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston and at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston. They built a machine learning survival model from MRI radiomic features and tested it on a separate patient group without refitting it. Its discrimination score was lower on the group it was tested on than on the group it was built on. The paper reports overlapping confidence intervals for the two and no test that the difference is real. The authors conclude that the approach showed limited standalone discrimination and support cautious use of it as an exploratory imaging biomarker. The paper is a research result rather than a deployment, and neither institution has published a statement that the model is used in patient care. - Topic: health-and-education - Decided by: The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, with The University of Texas Medical Branch (state-agency) - Where: Harris, Galveston - Statistical areas: - Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42716711/ - Last checked: 2026-10-07 ## Dates - 2026-09-09 · filed: Article date recorded by the National Library of Medicine for the online publication ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-13 · Admitted to the record. A model built at a Texas cancer center scored lower on patients it had not been fitted to. The authors call that limited standalone discrimination and ask for cautious use, and they report no test that the difference is real. - 2026-09-16 · The MRI model still scored lower on patients it was not built on, and the authors' own reading of that result is unchanged. Nothing has been retracted. - 2026-09-19 · The result stands as published, and the model has not been reported as refitted to the patients it scored lower on. - 2026-09-23 · The model still scored lower on the patients it was not built on, which is what the paper reported. - 2026-09-26 · The paper still reports the model scoring lower on the patients it was not built on. - 2026-09-29 · The paper still reports the MRI model scoring lower on patients outside the group it was built on. - 2026-10-02 · The study's result is unconfirmed this run. The abstract service bars automated readers and the article page shows no text to a reader without a script. - 2026-10-03 · The study's result is still unconfirmed. The abstract service bars automated readers and the article page shows no text without a script. - 2026-10-04 · The study's result still reads as published. The abstract still reports limited standalone discrimination for survival and still advises cautious use of the score as an exploratory marker. - 2026-10-07 · The MRI study's published abstract and its author affiliations read as they did, with nothing changed. - 2026-10-10 · The MRI study's abstract and its author affiliations are unconfirmed today, because the index that carries them bars automated readers. - 2026-10-14 · The MRI study's abstract and its author affiliations stay unconfirmed, since the index that carries them still bars automated readers. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The study built the model on one cohort and tested the fixed model on another without refitting it. > This retrospective study developed a T1 postcontrast MRI radiomics survival model in a public brain metastasis cohort of 198 patients and externally validated the fixed radiomics model, without refitting or recalibration, in an independent cohort of 69 patients. Source (primary_official): https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/efetch.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=42716711&rettype=abstract&retmode=xml ### The model's discrimination was lower on the outside cohort than on the cohort it was built on. > The radiomics score had a C-index of 0.615 (95% CI, 0.543-0.687) in the training cohort and 0.574 (95% CI, 0.491-0.658) in external validation. Source (primary_official): https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/efetch.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=42716711&rettype=abstract&retmode=xml ### The authors state the conclusion as a limit rather than as a result. > T1 postcontrast MRI radiomics showed limited standalone discrimination for overall survival in patients with brain metastases. Source (primary_official): https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/efetch.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=42716711&rettype=abstract&retmode=xml ### The authors ask for cautious use and for models that carry more than imaging. > These results support cautious use of radiomics as an exploratory imaging biomarker and emphasize the need for integrated prognostic models that include clinical, treatment, molecular, and systemic disease variables. Source (primary_official): https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/efetch.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=42716711&rettype=abstract&retmode=xml ### The neuroradiology authors are at MD Anderson in Houston and the radiology authors at the Medical Branch in Galveston. > From the Department of Neuroradiology (R.E., H.A.Q., S.A., A.M., P.K.), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; Department of Radiology (E.C.), Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA; Department of Radiology (H.A.S., A.N., M.W.), The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA Source (primary_official): https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/efetch.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=42716711&rettype=abstract&retmode=xml ### The final model kept a small number of imaging features after selection. > The final model retained 7 nonzero T1 postcontrast radiomics features after correlation filtering and elastic-net selection. Source (primary_official): https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/efetch.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=42716711&rettype=abstract&retmode=xml ### Adding the established clinical score did not lift the model above its training figure. > In the external-validation subset with available Graded Prognostic Assessment, the combined radiomics plus Graded Prognostic Assessment model had a C-index of 0.591 (95% CI, 0.509-0.672). Source (primary_official): https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/efetch.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=42716711&rettype=abstract&retmode=xml --- # The grid operator tells providers which large loads it has provisionally placed in Batch Zero, and every placement carries a condition ERCOT issued a market notice telling each Interconnecting Distribution Service Provider and Transmission Service Provider how it had provisionally classified the large loads submitted for the Batch Zero interconnection process. The notice states that inclusion is conditional. The conditions it names include the interconnecting large load entity passing verification and curing deficiencies in dynamic model data. Another is the Public Utility Commission of Texas granting a good cause exception. It states that failure to satisfy an applicable condition may disqualify the load. It also names the route by which an entity that disagrees with a classification may dispute it. The notice names no individual load and gives no total, so the size of the provisional list is not public. - Topic: power-and-the-grid - Decided by: Electric Reliability Council of Texas (state-agency) - Where: Statewide - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://www.ercot.com/services/comm/mkt_notices/M-A080326-04 - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-09-03 · ordered: Date the market notice carries ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-13 · Admitted to the record. The grid operator has told providers which large loads sit on the provisional Batch Zero list. Every placement on it carries a condition that can still take the load off. The notice names no load and gives no total. - 2026-09-16 · The grid operator's notice telling providers which loads are provisionally in the first batch still stands as issued. The classifications it announced are still conditional. - 2026-09-19 · The provisional placements stand and the conditions attached to them are unchanged. - 2026-09-24 · The provisional Batch Zero placements and the conditions attached to them are unchanged. - 2026-09-27 · The grid operator's notice of provisional Batch Zero placements still reads as issued, with the same conditions on every placement. - 2026-09-30 · The grid operator's notice on provisional placement of large loads still reads as issued. - 2026-10-03 · The grid operator's notice on which large loads sit provisionally in Batch Zero still reads as issued. - 2026-10-06 · The grid operator's notice on which large loads sit provisionally in Batch Zero still reads as issued. - 2026-10-09 · The grid operator's notice placing large loads provisionally in Batch Zero still reads as issued, each placement still conditional. - 2026-10-12 · The notice still says every Batch Zero placement is conditional, and that missing a condition may disqualify the load from Batch Zero. The record now quotes that sentence whole. - 2026-10-15 · ERCOT's notice of provisional Batch Zero placements reads as issued, each placement still conditional. - 2026-10-18 · ERCOT's notice of provisional Batch Zero placements still reads as issued, with a condition on each one. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · The grid operator's provisional Batch Zero placements still carry their conditions. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### Inclusion in Batch Zero is conditional, and the notice names the conditions. > The information provided indicates whether each Large Load has been conditionally included in Batch Zero subject to one or more conditions, such as the Interconnecting Large Load Entity (ILLE) passing verification, the ILLE curing deficiencies in dynamic model data, or the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) granting ERCOT a good cause exception to allow the Large Load to qualify despite not meeting an applicable eligibility requirement at the time of submission. Source (primary_official): https://www.ercot.com/services/comm/mkt_notices/M-A080326-04 ### A load that does not satisfy a condition can be taken off the list. > Failure to satisfy any applicable condition may disqualify the Large Load from Batch Zero. Source (primary_official): https://www.ercot.com/services/comm/mkt_notices/M-A080326-04 --- # The grid operator sends every conditionally classified large load a questionnaire, with a notarized attestation and ten business days to answer ERCOT published the user guide for the Verification RFI on September 11th, 2026, the questionnaire it issues as part of the Batch Zero eligibility verification. The guide states the questionnaire goes to every large load that was conditionally classified on the list distributed to transmission service providers on September 3rd. Each of the three parties on a project, the load entity, the distribution service provider and the transmission service provider, answers the sections assigned to its own role. Which sections a project sees depends on the conditional classification ERCOT gave it. Every participating party has to upload a notarized attestation before the response can be submitted. Responses are due within ten business days of issuance and a five day extension may be requested through the transmission service provider. A load entity that fails to supply what its provider needs may be taken off the Batch Zero process. Only the transmission service provider can submit the finished response, and once submitted it is locked. - Topic: power-and-the-grid - Decided by: Electric Reliability Council of Texas (state-agency) - Where: Statewide - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2026/09/11/Verification-RFI-User-Guide-v1.1.pdf - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-09-03 · filed: Date of the conditional classification list the questionnaire is issued against - 2026-09-11 · ordered: Version date on the user guide the grid operator published for the questionnaire ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-14 · Admitted to the record. The grid operator has published the guide to the questionnaire every conditionally classified large load must answer. A notarized attestation from each of the three parties is part of a complete response. A load entity that does not supply what its provider needs may be taken off the process. - 2026-09-17 · The guide to the verification questionnaire is still posted where the record found it and still sets the same terms. Ten business days to answer, a notarized attestation from each participating party and the transmission provider as the only one able to send the finished response to the grid operator. - 2026-09-20 · The grid operator's user guide for the Verification RFI still carries the same rules for answering it. The notarized attestation, the response window and the transmission service provider's sole authority to submit all read as the record has them. - 2026-09-24 · The user guide for the questionnaire still requires the notarized attestation and still leaves submission to the transmission service provider alone. - 2026-09-27 · The questionnaire's user guide still requires a notarized attestation and still routes submission through the transmission service provider. - 2026-09-30 · The grid operator's questionnaire to every conditionally classified large load still reads as issued. - 2026-10-03 · The questionnaire the grid operator sent every conditionally classified large load still reads as issued, notarized attestation included. - 2026-10-06 · The user guide for the grid operator's verification questionnaire still reads as issued, the notarized attestation still required. - 2026-10-09 · The grid operator's questionnaire guide for conditionally classified large loads still reads as issued, the notarized attestation still in it. - 2026-10-12 · The grid operator's guide for large loads answering its verification request still reads as posted. - 2026-10-15 · ERCOT's user guide for the verification request still reads as posted, notarized attestation included. - 2026-10-18 · ERCOT's user guide for the verification request still carries the notarized attestation. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · The grid operator's questionnaire to conditionally classified large loads still carries its notarized attestation requirement. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The grid operator has issued a Verification RFI as part of the Batch Zero eligibility verification. > ERCOT has issued a Request for Information and Production (RFI, referred to as the Verification RFI) as part of the Batch Zero Eligibility Verification process. Source (primary_official): https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2026/09/11/Verification-RFI-User-Guide-v1.1.pdf ### It goes to every large load on the conditional classification list distributed on September 3rd. > This is being issued to all Large Loads that were conditionally classified on the list distributed to TSPs on Thursday, September 3, 2026 Source (primary_official): https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2026/09/11/Verification-RFI-User-Guide-v1.1.pdf ### Responses are due within ten business days and a five day extension may be requested. > Responses are due within 10 business days of issuance. A 5-day extension may be requested from ERCOT through your TSP. Source (primary_official): https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2026/09/11/Verification-RFI-User-Guide-v1.1.pdf ### A load entity that does not supply what its provider needs may be taken off the Batch Zero process. > If the Load Entity fails to provide information and/or supporting documentation necessary for the TSP to timely submit a completed response to this Verification RFI, the Large Load may be removed from the Batch Zero Process. Source (primary_official): https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2026/09/11/Verification-RFI-User-Guide-v1.1.pdf ### Every participating party has to complete a notarized attestation. > Each participating party (ILLE, DSP, and TSP) is required to complete a notarized attestation. Upload your company's attestation file in the designated Section before submitting. Source (primary_official): https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2026/09/11/Verification-RFI-User-Guide-v1.1.pdf ### Which sections a project answers depends on the conditional classification it was given. > The sections and questions you see depend on your role and the Large Load Project's conditional classification in Batch Zero. Source (primary_official): https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2026/09/11/Verification-RFI-User-Guide-v1.1.pdf ### Only the transmission service provider may submit the finished response, and it locks on submission. > It is the TSP's responsibility to submit the fully completed Verification RFI to ERCOT. Only the TSP has the Submit to ERCOT button available. Once submitted, the Verification RFI is locked and cannot be edited. Source (primary_official): https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2026/09/11/Verification-RFI-User-Guide-v1.1.pdf ### Answers are treated as confidential to the extent the law permits. > All information submitted will be treated as confidential to the extent permitted by law. Source (primary_official): https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2026/09/11/Verification-RFI-User-Guide-v1.1.pdf --- # A data center developer tells its shareholders what the Batch Zero list did to five of its Texas projects, and one came back in a different class than it was filed in Galaxy Digital published an account on September 8th, 2026 of the conditional Batch Zero classifications ERCOT gave five of its Texas data center projects. Three of the five sit at the Helios campus in Dickens County, in the panhandle region of West Texas. Two projects already approved at that campus before the batch were classified as Batch Zero Base Load. Three more, Caspian, Selene and a further Helios load request, were classified as Batch Zero Studied Load. The account states that the company submitted Caspian as Base Load and that it was conditionally classified as Studied Load instead. It states what separates the two classes. A base load project is modeled in the study and is not subject to further capacity allocation. A studied load project is subject to capacity allocation as part of the study. The grid operator's own notice of the classifications named no load and gave no total. This account is where the public first learned what a classification did to a named project. The company's own risk section states that a classification may be modified, withdrawn or not confirmed, and that a project may be removed from Batch Zero. - Topic: data-centers - Decided by: Galaxy Digital Inc. (company) - Where: Dickens - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/galaxy-provides-update-on-ercot-batch-zero-large-load-classifications-302872795.html - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-09-08 · filed: Date the company's account of the classifications carries ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-14 · Admitted to the record. The developer's own account is where the public first learned what a Batch Zero classification did to a named project. One of the five was filed in one class and came back conditionally classified in the other. - 2026-09-17 · The developer's account of what the Batch Zero list did to its Texas projects is unchanged. Caspian is still described as submitted for base load and conditionally classified as studied load, and the Helios campus in Dickens County still carries the load requests the record lists. - 2026-09-20 · The developer's account of what the Batch Zero list did to its five Texas projects still reads as the record took it. The project that came back in a different class than it was filed in is still described that way. - 2026-09-24 · The developer's account to its shareholders of what Batch Zero did to its Texas projects reads as before. The project placed in a different class than it filed in is still described that way. - 2026-09-27 · The developer's account to its shareholders of what the Batch Zero list did to its Texas projects still reads as filed. - 2026-09-30 · The developer's account to its shareholders of what the Batch Zero list did to its projects still reads as published. - 2026-10-03 · The developer's account to its shareholders of what Batch Zero did to its projects still reads as filed. - 2026-10-06 · The developer's account to its shareholders of where it sits on the Batch Zero list still reads as filed. - 2026-10-09 · The developer's account to shareholders of its Texas projects on the Batch Zero list still reads as released. - 2026-10-12 · The developer's account of what the Batch Zero list did to its Texas projects still reads as it told shareholders. - 2026-10-15 · The developer's account to shareholders of what the Batch Zero list did to its projects reads as published. - 2026-10-18 · The developer's report to shareholders on what Batch Zero did to its Texas projects reads as filed. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · The developer's account to shareholders of what the Batch Zero list did to its Texas projects still reads as published. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### Five of the company's Texas data center projects received conditional Batch Zero classifications. > Galaxy Digital Inc. (Nasdaq: GLXY) ("Galaxy" or the "Company") today announced that five of its Texas data center projects received conditional classifications under the Electric Reliability Council of Texas ("ERCOT") Batch Zero large load interconnection process, covering approximately 4.2 gigawatts of gross power capacity. Source (primary_corporate): https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/galaxy-provides-update-on-ercot-batch-zero-large-load-classifications-302872795.html ### The two classes are treated differently in the study. > Base Load projects are modeled in the study and are not subject to further capacity allocation, while Studied Load projects are subject to capacity allocation as part of the study. Source (primary_corporate): https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/galaxy-provides-update-on-ercot-batch-zero-large-load-classifications-302872795.html ### One project was submitted in one class and conditionally classified in the other. > Galaxy submitted Caspian as Base Load; the project has been conditionally classified as Studied Load. Source (primary_corporate): https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/galaxy-provides-update-on-ercot-batch-zero-large-load-classifications-302872795.html ### The first two projects were classified as base load. > Helios I — 800 megawatts (MW) at the Helios data center campus, classified as Batch Zero Base Load. Source (primary_corporate): https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/galaxy-provides-update-on-ercot-batch-zero-large-load-classifications-302872795.html ### The three expansion projects were classified as studied load. > Helios III — a 1,000 MW load request at the Helios campus, classified as Batch Zero Studied Load. Source (primary_corporate): https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/galaxy-provides-update-on-ercot-batch-zero-large-load-classifications-302872795.html ### The company states that a classification may be withdrawn and a project removed. > (1) the conditional nature of the Batch Zero classifications described above and the possibility that a classification is modified, withdrawn or not confirmed; (2) the outcome, scope and duration of the verification and audit being conducted by ERCOT and the Public Utility Commission of Texas, and the risk that a project is removed from Batch Zero Source (primary_corporate): https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/galaxy-provides-update-on-ercot-batch-zero-large-load-classifications-302872795.html ### The campus the three projects sit on is in Dickens County. > Dickens County, Texas Source (primary_corporate): https://www.galaxy.com/data-centers --- # ERCOT tells its board that AI training loads can fatigue grid generators and drafts a limit on how fast their power draw may swing The Electric Reliability Council of Texas put a list of emerging Large Load risks in front of its own Board of Directors at the September 14th and 15th, 2026 meeting. The presentation names three risks and a mitigation for each, and the three sit at three different stages. Ride through requirements are already in force. The model quality rule cleared the board on September 15th and now waits on the Public Utility Commission of Texas. The third rule has not been written yet. The grid operator states that Large Loads tied to data center AI training processes can swing their power draw fast enough to perturb synchronous generator shafts. It says that swing can cause equipment fatigue or damage. Its draft rule would hold a Large Load's power variation to 10 MW per 5 seconds. The same page states that the dynamic models the grid operator uses to study these loads have proven inaccurate, and that Texas A&M University is building better ones. The presentation itself was for information only and the board was asked to take no action on it. - Topic: power-and-the-grid - Decided by: Electric Reliability Council of Texas (state-agency) - Where: Statewide - Status: pending - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://www.ercot.com/mktrules/issues/PGRR144 - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-08-26 · passed: Technical Advisory Committee recommended PGRR144 for approval - 2026-09-14 · hearing: Board of Directors meeting at which the risk list was presented - 2026-09-15 · passed: Board of Directors recommended PGRR144 for approval and sent it to the Public Utility Commission of Texas ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-15 · Admitted on the grid operator's own presentation to its board. Three Large Load risks are named with a mitigation each, and the three mitigations sit at three different stages. - 2026-09-18 · The model quality rule moved and the other two did not. The market rules page for PGRR144 now carries a September 15th board vote recommending approval. It names the Public Utility Commission of Texas as the body that takes it next. The draft rule on how fast a large load may swing its power draw still carries no number and no filing date. - 2026-09-21 · The rule on dynamic model quality is still with the commission rather than in force. The market rules page shows it pending and names the board's recommendation to approve as the last action taken. The Public Utility Commission of Texas is named as the body that takes it next. The presentation the risk list comes from still reads as the record holds it. That goes down to the ramp limit the draft rule will recommend and the modeling work the grid operator is doing with Texas A&M. - 2026-09-24 · The board materials describing generator fatigue from AI training loads still read as the record took them. - 2026-09-27 · The board materials on generator fatigue from training loads still read as posted, and the draft limit on how fast that draw may swing is still pending. - 2026-09-30 · The grid operator's board presentation and the planning guide revision it names still read as filed. - 2026-10-03 · The board presentation on AI training loads and the draft limit it names still read as filed. - 2026-10-06 · The grid operator's board presentation on AI training loads still reads as filed, and the rule revision it points to still sits open. - 2026-10-09 · The board presentation on AI training loads still reads as filed. The rule revision page on power swings did not answer today, so its stage is unconfirmed. - 2026-10-12 · The board presentation on AI training loads and generator fatigue still reads as filed. The drafted limit on how fast those loads may swing has not been adopted. - 2026-10-15 · The board presentation on AI training loads and generator fatigue still reads as filed. The drafted limit has not been adopted. - 2026-10-18 · ERCOT's board presentation and the draft rule page still read as filed. The drafted limit is not adopted. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-10-24 · The grid operator's draft limit on how fast AI training loads may swing their power draw still reads as presented to its board. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The grid operator states that data center AI training loads can swing power draw fast enough to damage generators. > Large Loads, particularly those associated with data center AI training processes, are capable of producing rapid fluctuations in active power consumption. These variations can induce perturbations on synchronous generator shafts and potentially result in equipment fatigue or damage. Source (primary_official): https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2026/09/07/10-Interconnection-and-Grid-Analysis-Update.pdf ### The draft rule names the limit it would set on a Large Load's power variation. > Consequently, ERCOT's draft NOGRR, Large Load MW Variation Requirements, will recommend a limit of 10 MW per 5 seconds for power variation in Large Loads. Source (primary_official): https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2026/09/07/10-Interconnection-and-Grid-Analysis-Update.pdf ### The grid operator says how long it has been investigating the risk. > Since July 2025, ERCOT collaborated with industry experts and engaged stakeholders to investigate these risks. Source (primary_official): https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2026/09/07/10-Interconnection-and-Grid-Analysis-Update.pdf ### The same page says the models the grid operator uses to study these loads do not work. > Dynamic models for Large Loads have proven to be inaccurate and thus are inadequate for studying their grid impacts. Source (primary_official): https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2026/09/07/10-Interconnection-and-Grid-Analysis-Update.pdf ### The grid operator names who is building the replacement models. > ERCOT is working with Texas A&M University on developing more accurate models. Source (primary_official): https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2026/09/07/10-Interconnection-and-Grid-Analysis-Update.pdf ### The university has finished a model for one kind of load and not for the other. > Texas A&M has released a new model for crypto mining facilities and is working on a data center model. Source (primary_official): https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2026/09/07/10-Interconnection-and-Grid-Analysis-Update.pdf ### The first of the three risks already has a rule in force. > The PUCT approved NOGRR 282/ NPRR 1308 in July, effective on August 1. Source (primary_official): https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2026/09/07/10-Interconnection-and-Grid-Analysis-Update.pdf ### The second of the three risks reached the board this month. > TAC endorsed PGRR 144 in August and is up for Board consideration in September. Source (primary_official): https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2026/09/07/10-Interconnection-and-Grid-Analysis-Update.pdf ### The third rule has not been filed and the grid operator gives a window rather than a date. > ERCOT plans to submit NOGRR in September or October. Source (primary_official): https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2026/09/07/10-Interconnection-and-Grid-Analysis-Update.pdf ### The presentation states what the board was asked to do about it. > No action is requested; for discussion only. Source (primary_official): https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2026/09/07/10-Interconnection-and-Grid-Analysis-Update.pdf ### The revision request before the board has a public page naming what it requires. > This Planning Guide Revision Request (PGRR) clarifies requirements for submitting dynamic model data for Large Loads to ensure accurate representation of each Large Load in ERCOT's models. Source (primary_official): https://www.ercot.com/mktrules/issues/PGRR144 ### That page carries the revision request's own status and the date it was posted. > Status: Pending Date Posted: Feb 18, 2026 Sponsor: ERCOT Urgent: No Source (primary_official): https://www.ercot.com/mktrules/issues/PGRR144 ### The same page records the committee vote that sent it to the board. > 08/26/2026 TAC Recommended for Approval Board for consideration Source (primary_official): https://www.ercot.com/mktrules/issues/PGRR144 ### The revision request's own page records the board vote and names the body that considers it next. > 09/15/2026 BOARD Recommended for Approval PUCT for consideration Source (primary_official): https://www.ercot.com/mktrules/issues/PGRR144 ### The voting record states the motion the board passed and what it rested on. > To recommend approval of PGRR144 as recommended by TAC in the 8/26/26 TAC Report Source (primary_official): https://www.ercot.com/mktrules/issues/PGRR144 --- # Houston academic physician group moves from two ambient AI pilots toward one unified documentation platform UT Physicians is the clinical practice of McGovern Medical School at UTHealth Houston. Its chief medical information officer told a school wide meeting on September 9th, 2026 that the practice is working toward adopting one ambient listening platform as a unified system. Pilots ran on two competing products first. The stated purpose is to cut the administrative load of clinical documentation and return attention to the patient. The same meeting reported that McGovern is taking part in a University of Texas System project examining already completed student simulations to see whether AI can write the feedback. Real time feedback is named as the longer term goal. No completion date is given for either. - Topic: health-and-education - Decided by: UT Physicians, McGovern Medical School at UTHealth Houston (company) - Where: Harris - Statistical areas: - Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX - Status: pending - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://med.uth.edu/blog/2026/09/09/deans-dialogue-highlights-progress-plans-for-year-ahead/ - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-09-09 · filed: Date the school published the account of the meeting ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-15 · Admitted on the medical school's own published account of the meeting at which the practice described the move. - 2026-09-18 · The account of the meeting still reads as a direction rather than a contract. One unified ambient listening platform is still the stated aim after the two pilots ran, no vendor is named, and no completion date has been added. - 2026-09-21 · The practice is still described as working toward one ambient listening platform rather than as having chosen one. No platform has been named and no adoption date has been set. - 2026-09-24 · The physician group is still described as moving toward a single ambient documentation platform. It has named none and set no date. - 2026-09-27 · The physician group's move toward one documentation platform is still described as under way, with no completion announced. - 2026-09-30 · The physician group still describes its move from two ambient pilots to one documentation platform as under way, and has announced no finish. - 2026-10-03 · The physician group's account of moving from two pilots toward one documentation tool still reads as published, and no choice of vendor has been announced. - 2026-10-06 · The physician group's account of moving its ambient AI pilots toward wider use still reads as published, with no wider rollout announced. - 2026-10-09 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-10-12 · The physician group is still moving toward one documentation platform. No date for the switch has been announced. - 2026-10-15 · The physician group is still moving to one documentation platform, with no switch date announced. - 2026-10-18 · The physician group is still moving from two ambient AI pilots to one platform. No switch date is announced. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-10-24 · The Houston physician group is still moving from its two ambient AI pilots toward one documentation platform. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The practice ran pilots on two products and is moving to a third as its single system. > Following pilot programs involving DAX and Abridge, UT Physicians is working toward adopting Epic's ambient listening platform as a unified system. Source (primary_corporate): https://med.uth.edu/blog/2026/09/09/deans-dialogue-highlights-progress-plans-for-year-ahead/ ### The school states what the technology is meant to do for the physician. > The technology is intended to reduce the administrative burden associated with clinical documentation, improve efficiency, and allow physicians to focus more attention on patients. Source (primary_corporate): https://med.uth.edu/blog/2026/09/09/deans-dialogue-highlights-progress-plans-for-year-ahead/ ### The same meeting described an AI feedback project on completed student simulations. > The project will initially examine previously completed student simulations to explore how AI could provide feedback, with the longer-term goal of evaluating opportunities for real-time feedback. Source (primary_corporate): https://med.uth.edu/blog/2026/09/09/deans-dialogue-highlights-progress-plans-for-year-ahead/ --- # UT Arlington develops a federally funded AI tutor and tests related technology with Fort Worth police The University of Texas at Arlington published an account on September 10th, 2026 of a project using a National Science Foundation grant to create an AI conversational tutor. The planned tutor will ask questions and offer hints so students can work toward answers themselves. The same account says testing has begun with the Fort Worth Police Department using real life training scenarios and prompts based on de escalation. The university describes the system judging whether an officer is listening and follows what the other person wants to discuss. A funding note separately attributes the police work to the U.S. Department of Justice. The release reports no evaluation results for either use. - Topic: research-and-science - Decided by: The University of Texas at Arlington (state-agency) - Where: Tarrant - Statistical areas: - Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://www.uta.edu/news/news-releases/2026/09/10/uta-develops-ai-tutor-that-teaches-not-tells - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-09-10 · filed: Date the university published the account. No claim carries the date of any decision behind it ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-15 · Admitted on the university's own release, which names the funder and says the researchers are helping to develop the police training. - 2026-09-18 · The university's account is unchanged. The tutor is still described as one built to withhold the answer, and the Fort Worth police training work still sits beside it in the same account. No evaluation result has been published for either. - 2026-09-21 · The university's account still describes a tutor built to withhold the answer, and the federal award behind it is unchanged. The design choice that makes it unusual is still the one the account leads with. - 2026-09-24 · The tutor is still described as built to hold back the answer, and the federal award behind it is unchanged. - 2026-09-27 · The university's account of the tutor that withholds the answer still reads as announced, police training work included. - 2026-09-30 · The university's account of the tutor that holds back the answer still reads as published, including the police training work. - 2026-10-03 · UT Arlington's account of the tutor that withholds the answer still reads as published. - 2026-10-06 · UT Arlington's federally funded AI tutor that holds back the answer is still described as it was announced. - 2026-10-09 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-12 · UT Arlington's federally funded tutor that withholds the answer is still described as built, with the police training work beside it. - 2026-10-15 · UT Arlington's tutor that withholds the answer is still described as built, beside the police training work. - 2026-10-18 · UT Arlington's tutor that holds back the answer is still described as built, beside its police training work. - 2026-10-22 · The university's account did not answer today, so the tutor and the police training work are unconfirmed since their last check. - 2026-10-23 · The university's account could not be reached today, so the tutor and the police training work stay unconfirmed since October 18th. - 2026-10-24 · UT Arlington's AI tutor that withholds the answer is unconfirmed today, since the university's release did not answer. - 2026-10-24 · The university confirms the planned tutor and says police testing has begun. The police training is separately funded by the Justice Department. The release reports no evaluation results for either use. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The university names the funder and what the grant is for. > are using a $750,000 National Science Foundation grant to create an AI conversational tutor to guide students through situational assignments Source (primary_official): https://www.uta.edu/news/news-releases/2026/09/10/uta-develops-ai-tutor-that-teaches-not-tells ### Testing with the city police department has already started. > Deb has already begun testing the system with the Fort Worth Police Department Source (primary_official): https://www.uta.edu/news/news-releases/2026/09/10/uta-develops-ai-tutor-that-teaches-not-tells ### The university describes what the system judges about an officer. > The AI can tell when an officer is being kind and listening, when the officer picks up on something the person wants to talk about and follows that conversation, and when the officer doesn't connect with the person. Source (primary_official): https://www.uta.edu/news/news-releases/2026/09/10/uta-develops-ai-tutor-that-teaches-not-tells ### The planned tutor will prompt students toward their own answers. > Back in Deb's classroom, her AI tutor will not provide answers. Instead, it will interact with students and prompt them with questions to help them discover the answers on their own, much like a classroom teacher helping a student at their desk. Source (primary_official): https://www.uta.edu/news/news-releases/2026/09/10/uta-develops-ai-tutor-that-teaches-not-tells ### The police training work has separate Justice Department funding. > funded by the U.S. Department of Justice Source (primary_official): https://www.uta.edu/news/news-releases/2026/09/10/uta-develops-ai-tutor-that-teaches-not-tells --- # Memorial Hermann clinicians send Houston patients an AI drafted explanation of their own test results Memorial Hermann Health System says its clinicians are using an artificial intelligence assistant built into Epic to draft the note a patient receives with a lab or imaging result. The draft is written in plain language rather than clinical terms and the clinician can review, edit and personalize it before sharing it with the patient. The health system reports that patients sent 32% fewer follow up messages about test results when the clinician started from the draft. It reports the tool has helped care teams write over 55,000 messages and that clinicians starting from a draft saved an average of nine seconds per result comment. The feature was piloted in December of 2025 in the system's innovation clinic and use has since expanded across the system. A health system trade publication that read the same announcement noted every one of those figures comes from the software vendor and its customer. No baseline, control arm or denominator is published beside them, and the share describes only the clinicians who chose to work from a draft. The system's chief medical information officer says the technology is designed to support rather than replace the clinician's judgment. - Topic: health-and-education - Decided by: Memorial Hermann Health System (company) - Where: Harris - Statistical areas: - Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/memorial-hermann-health-system-clinicians-use-epics-ai-tool-to-help-patients-better-understand-test-results-302870772.html - Last checked: 2026-10-22 ## Dates - 2026-09-08 · decided: Date the health system published the account of the rollout ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-17 · Admitted to the record. The health system's own announcement is where the public first learned that a model drafts the sentence a Houston patient reads beside their lab or imaging result. Every figure in it was published by the software vendor and its customer, and a trade publication reading the same announcement two days later named what they leave out. - 2026-09-20 · The health system's account of clinicians sending Houston patients an AI drafted explanation of their own results still stands. Nothing has moved on what the assistant drafts or on the clinician who reviews it before it goes out. - 2026-09-23 · Houston patients are still getting an explanation of their own results that software drafted first. - 2026-09-26 · Memorial Hermann patients still receive an explanation of their results that software drafted first. - 2026-09-29 · Memorial Hermann patients still receive an explanation of their test results that software drafts before a clinician sends it. - 2026-10-02 · Memorial Hermann's clinicians still send patients the drafted explanations described in the system's own material. The trade publication's interview bars automated readers. - 2026-10-05 · Memorial Hermann still describes its clinicians using an AI assistant to draft the plain language note a patient gets with a result, which the clinician can edit before sending. - 2026-10-08 · Memorial Hermann's announcement still describes clinicians editing an AI draft before a patient sees the note on a result. Its own figures for the drop in follow up messages are unchanged. - 2026-10-11 · Memorial Hermann's release still describes clinicians editing the AI draft before a patient reads it. The trade press account stays out of reach. - 2026-10-15 · Memorial Hermann's release still has clinicians editing the AI draft before a patient reads it. The trade press account is unconfirmed. - 2026-10-18 · Memorial Hermann's release still has clinicians editing the AI draft before a patient reads it. The trade press account is unconfirmed. - 2026-10-22 · Memorial Hermann's release still has a clinician editing the AI draft before a patient reads it. The trade press account stays unconfirmed. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The health system states its clinicians are using an AI tool inside its electronic record to help patients understand test results. > Clinicians at Memorial Hermann Health System (MHHS) are using a new artificial intelligence (AI) tool built directly into Epic to help patients better understand their test results and to make informed decisions about next steps in their care journey. Source (primary_corporate): https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/memorial-hermann-health-system-clinicians-use-epics-ai-tool-to-help-patients-better-understand-test-results-302870772.html ### The announcement describes what the assistant does and when in the workflow it does it. > As clinicians review lab and imaging results in Epic's In Basket, Art helps generate an initial draft patient note in real time, using clear, patient-friendly language instead of complex medical terms. Source (primary_corporate): https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/memorial-hermann-health-system-clinicians-use-epics-ai-tool-to-help-patients-better-understand-test-results-302870772.html ### The clinician remains the one who edits and sends. > Clinicians can then review, edit and personalize the draft, giving them more time to focus on the patient's care and next steps. Source (primary_corporate): https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/memorial-hermann-health-system-clinicians-use-epics-ai-tool-to-help-patients-better-understand-test-results-302870772.html ### The health system reports a fall in follow up messages from patients. > Since Memorial Hermann began using the feature, patients have sent 32% fewer follow-up messages about test results when clinicians started with Art's draft, reducing the number of return questions while helping patients receive the information they need at the time they receive their results. Source (primary_corporate): https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/memorial-hermann-health-system-clinicians-use-epics-ai-tool-to-help-patients-better-understand-test-results-302870772.html ### The announcement gives the volume of messages the tool has drafted. > Art has helped Memorial Hermann's care teams write over 55,000 messages to patients. Source (primary_corporate): https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/memorial-hermann-health-system-clinicians-use-epics-ai-tool-to-help-patients-better-understand-test-results-302870772.html ### The announcement gives the time saved per result comment. > So far, clinicians who have started with Art's draft have saved an average of nine seconds per result comment. Source (primary_corporate): https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/memorial-hermann-health-system-clinicians-use-epics-ai-tool-to-help-patients-better-understand-test-results-302870772.html ### The pilot and the expansion are dated in the announcement. > Memorial Hermann piloted the feature in December of 2025 in their innovation clinic for clinician feedback and has quickly expanded use across the System. Source (primary_corporate): https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/memorial-hermann-health-system-clinicians-use-epics-ai-tool-to-help-patients-better-understand-test-results-302870772.html ### The chief medical information officer states the intended limit of the tool. > This technology is designed to support, not replace, the role of the clinician's judgment and relationship with the patient. Source (primary_corporate): https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/memorial-hermann-health-system-clinicians-use-epics-ai-tool-to-help-patients-better-understand-test-results-302870772.html ### A trade publication names what the published figures do not establish. > All three figures come from Epic and its customer. No baseline, control arm or denominator accompanies them. Source (journalism): https://healthsystemcio.com/2026/09/10/in-basket-ai-wrong-metric/ ### The same publication names who the reported share was measured on. > Specifically, the 32% describes clinicians who chose to work from a draft. Source (journalism): https://healthsystemcio.com/2026/09/10/in-basket-ai-wrong-metric/ --- # The National Science Foundation funds a UT Austin center to put assistive robots into occupied homes, workplaces and care facilities The National Science Foundation has made a Science and Technology Center award to the University of Texas at Austin for the Center for Human and Robot Co-Adaptation. Joydeep Biswas is the principal investigator. The award record runs from September 1st, 2026 to August 31st, 2031. The center's stated purpose is to work out how robots and the people around them adapt to each other over long periods. The aim is that assistive and service robots stay safe and aligned with what people actually want. The award abstract commits the work to a network of always on living laboratories in residential, commercial and healthcare buildings rather than to laboratory testing alone. The abstract says those deployments will grow more complex over the life of the center. The abstract describes the facility network as a thing to be built and the award clock started this month. - Topic: research-and-science - Decided by: U.S. National Science Foundation (federal) - Where: Travis - Statistical areas: - Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards.json?id=2535195&printFields=id,title,awardeeName,awardeeStateCode,awardeeCity,piFirstName,piLastName,date,startDate,expDate,estimatedTotalAmt,fundsObligatedAmt,abstractText,fundProgramName - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-08-25 · decided: Award date on the federal award record - 2026-09-01 · effective: Start date on the federal award record - 2031-08-31 · expires: Expiration date on the federal award record ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-17 · Admitted to the record. The federal award record carries the dates, the awardee and the abstract that commits the work to occupied buildings rather than to a laboratory. The award clock started this month and nothing is deployed. - 2026-09-20 · The federal award record for the UT Austin center on robots and the people around them still carries the same awardee, the same principal investigator and the same term. Nothing about the award has moved. - 2026-09-23 · The Austin center is still funded to put assistive robots into rooms people actually live in. - 2026-09-26 · The Austin center is still funded to place assistive robots in occupied homes, workplaces and care facilities. - 2026-09-29 · The UT Austin center is still funded to place assistive robots in occupied homes, workplaces and care facilities. - 2026-10-02 · The UT Austin center is still funded to bring assistive robots into occupied homes, workplaces and care facilities. - 2026-10-05 · The NSF center at UT Austin for assistive robots in occupied homes still stands as funded. - 2026-10-08 · The NSF center at UT Austin for assistive robots in lived-in homes is still funded. - 2026-10-11 · The NSF center at UT Austin for assistive robots in occupied homes remains funded. - 2026-10-15 · The center at UT Austin for assistive robots in occupied homes remains funded. - 2026-10-18 · The UT Austin center for assistive robots in occupied homes and workplaces is still funded. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · The NSF funded UT Austin center for assistive robots in homes, workplaces and care facilities is still active. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The award record names the center. > STC: Center for Human and Robot Co-Adaptation Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards.json?id=2535195&printFields=id,title,awardeeName,awardeeStateCode,awardeeCity,piFirstName,piLastName,date,startDate,expDate,estimatedTotalAmt,fundsObligatedAmt,abstractText,fundProgramName ### The abstract opens by naming the buildings the work is aimed at. > For robots to transition from research laboratories to effective collaborators in homes, hospitals, workplaces, and public spaces, they must be able to understand, interact with, and adapt to people over time. Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards.json?id=2535195&printFields=id,title,awardeeName,awardeeStateCode,awardeeCity,piFirstName,piLastName,date,startDate,expDate,estimatedTotalAmt,fundsObligatedAmt,abstractText,fundProgramName ### The abstract commits the research to occupied buildings rather than to a laboratory. > Research activities will be grounded, tested, and refined through the Human Environment with Robots (HERO) Facility Network, an ecologically valid testing ground comprising always-on, participatory living laboratories in residential, commercial, and healthcare facilities across the partner institution network. Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards.json?id=2535195&printFields=id,title,awardeeName,awardeeStateCode,awardeeCity,piFirstName,piLastName,date,startDate,expDate,estimatedTotalAmt,fundsObligatedAmt,abstractText,fundProgramName ### The abstract says the deployments are staged rather than in place. > These deployments will increase in complexity over the Center’s duration, supporting the development of generalizable principles, algorithms, and evaluation methods for long-term human-robot co-adaptation. Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards.json?id=2535195&printFields=id,title,awardeeName,awardeeStateCode,awardeeCity,piFirstName,piLastName,date,startDate,expDate,estimatedTotalAmt,fundsObligatedAmt,abstractText,fundProgramName ### The award record carries the start date. > "startDate":"09/01/2026" Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards.json?id=2535195&printFields=id,title,awardeeName,awardeeStateCode,awardeeCity,piFirstName,piLastName,date,startDate,expDate,estimatedTotalAmt,fundsObligatedAmt,abstractText,fundProgramName ### The university names the center's director in its own account of the award. > Joydeep Biswas, an associate professor of computer science at UT, will lead the team awarded the NSF grant and will serve as the director of the Center for Human and Robot Co-Adaptation. Source (primary_official): https://news.utexas.edu/2026/08/27/ut-to-lead-nsf-center-that-will-study-how-robots-and-people-learn-to-live-and-work-together/ ### The award record carries the expiration date. > "expDate":"08/31/2031" Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards.json?id=2535195&printFields=id,title,awardeeName,awardeeStateCode,awardeeCity,piFirstName,piLastName,date,startDate,expDate,estimatedTotalAmt,fundsObligatedAmt,abstractText,fundProgramName ### The award record names the awardee institution. > "awardeeName":"University of Texas at Austin" Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards.json?id=2535195&printFields=id,title,awardeeName,awardeeStateCode,awardeeCity,piFirstName,piLastName,date,startDate,expDate,estimatedTotalAmt,fundsObligatedAmt,abstractText,fundProgramName ### The award record names the principal investigator. > "piFirstName":"Joydeep","piId":"269963391","piLastName":"Biswas" Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards.json?id=2535195&printFields=id,title,awardeeName,awardeeStateCode,awardeeCity,piFirstName,piLastName,date,startDate,expDate,estimatedTotalAmt,fundsObligatedAmt,abstractText,fundProgramName ### The director states what the center is for, in the university's announcement. > It is enabling robots to understand the people around them: their needs, preferences, values and constraints, while recognizing that people also adapt their behavior when they integrate robots into their environment. Source (primary_official): https://news.utexas.edu/2026/08/27/ut-to-lead-nsf-center-that-will-study-how-robots-and-people-learn-to-live-and-work-together/ --- # The University of North Texas takes a twenty million dollar gift and names a college of artificial intelligence after the donors The University of North Texas announced a gift from Anuradha and Vikas Sinha and will name the Anuradha and Vikas Sinha College of Artificial Intelligence and Advanced Analytics. The university describes the college as an academic hub focused on the development, application and responsible use of artificial intelligence, intelligent systems and data analytics. The gift will create six permanent endowments covering college leadership and student scholarships alongside other purposes listed in the announcement. The announcement covers the gift and the college's new name. It does not give a first enrollment date or a research result. - Topic: health-and-education - Decided by: University of North Texas (state-agency) - Where: Denton - Statistical areas: - Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://news.unt.edu/news/2026/unt-receives-20-million-gift-to-advance-artificial-intelligence-advanced-analytics.html - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-09-08 · filed: Date the university published the gift and naming announcement ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-17 · Admitted to the record. The university's own announcement carries the gift, the name the college will take and the endowments it funds. What is decided is the money and the name. - 2026-09-20 · The university's announcement of the gift and of the college named for the donors still reads as the record took it. The endowments the gift creates are described as they were. - 2026-09-24 · The gift and the college named for its donors still read as the university announced them. - 2026-09-27 · The university's announcement of the gift and the college named for its donors still reads as published. - 2026-09-30 · The university's account of the gift and the college it names still reads as published. - 2026-10-03 · UNT's account of the gift and the college of AI it names still reads as published. - 2026-10-06 · UNT's announcement of the gift and the college of AI it names still reads as published. - 2026-10-09 · UNT's announcement of the gift and the college of AI named for the donors still reads as published. - 2026-10-12 · UNT's gift and the college of artificial intelligence named for its donors stand as announced. - 2026-10-15 · UNT's gift and the college of artificial intelligence it names stand as announced. - 2026-10-18 · UNT's announcement still names the college of artificial intelligence and the gift behind it. One passage of it was not found as quoted, so that wording is unconfirmed. - 2026-10-22 · The university's release did not answer today, so the gift and what it funds are unconfirmed since their last check. - 2026-10-23 · The university's release could not be reached today, so the gift and the college it names stay unconfirmed since October 18th. - 2026-10-24 · The gift naming a University of North Texas college of artificial intelligence is unconfirmed today, since the university's release did not answer. - 2026-10-24 · The gift amount and donor names are confirmed in the university's announcement. Its publication date does not establish when a separate naming decision was made. The announcement describes endowments the gift will create. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The university states the gift and what it will name. > In recognition of the Sinhas' commitment, UNT will name the Anuradha and Vikas Sinha College of Artificial Intelligence and Advanced Analytics , establishing an academic hub focused on the development, application and responsible use of artificial intelligence, intelligent systems and data analytics. Source (primary_official): https://news.unt.edu/news/2026/unt-receives-20-million-gift-to-advance-artificial-intelligence-advanced-analytics.html ### The announcement states what the gift funds. > The gift will create six permanent endowments supporting college leadership, student scholarships Source (primary_official): https://news.unt.edu/news/2026/unt-receives-20-million-gift-to-advance-artificial-intelligence-advanced-analytics.html ### The donor states what the college is meant to do beyond teaching use of the tools. > What excites us about UNT's vision is that this college will go beyond teaching students how to use AI. Source (primary_official): https://news.unt.edu/news/2026/unt-receives-20-million-gift-to-advance-artificial-intelligence-advanced-analytics.html ### The university states the size of the gift and names the donors. > A $20 million gift from Anuradha and Vikas Sinha will accelerate Source (primary_official): https://news.unt.edu/news/2026/unt-receives-20-million-gift-to-advance-artificial-intelligence-advanced-analytics.html --- # A three campus Texas trial tests whether a phone microphone held to the abdomen can count fetal movement by machine A feasibility trial registered on the federal clinical trials registry is recruiting pregnant patients at three Texas academic campuses. The lead sponsor is a professor of women's health at the University of Texas at Austin. Participants place a smartphone microphone on the abdominal wall and the recorded audio is assessed by a machine rather than by the patient's own sense of movement. The registered design is a prospective observational feasibility study of 60 patients drawn from both low risk and high risk pregnancies. What it measures is whether the application is usable rather than whether it prevents any loss. The registration reports an earlier pilot of 205 patients in which the machine assessment outperformed maternal perception against simultaneous ultrasound. The record gives a study start of August 6th, 2026 and was last updated on September 14th, 2026. - Topic: health-and-education - Decided by: University of Texas at Austin (state-agency) - Where: Travis, Harris, Galveston - Statistical areas: - Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX - Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT07626112 - Last checked: 2026-09-30 ## Dates - 2026-08-06 · effective: Study start date the registration records as actual - 2026-09-14 · filed: Date the registration record was last updated ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-18 · Admitted on the trial's own registration. The study is recruiting at three Texas academic campuses, and what it is registered to measure is whether the application can be used rather than whether it changes any outcome. - 2026-09-18 · A code review found that the summary published the recruitment status, the sponsor's role and two dates with no claim behind any of them. The registry was re-fetched and four claims were added, quoting the status, the start date, the last update date and the responsible party's title. The reader-facing link pointed at the JSON API and now points at the human study page. This is a recruiting trial and that field is the route a prospective participant would follow. - 2026-09-21 · The registry entry still shows the trial recruiting at the three Texas campuses, under the same sponsor and by the same method of holding a phone against the abdomen. - 2026-09-24 · The trial is still listed as recruiting at the same Texas campuses. A phone held against the abdomen is still the method under test. - 2026-09-27 · The trial of a phone microphone counting fetal movement still stands as the universities described it. - 2026-09-30 · The universities still describe the three campus trial of a phone microphone counting fetal movement as they first did. - 2026-10-03 · The three campus trial is unconfirmed this run. Its registry entry sits on a path this project does not read, and the universities' accounts did not load. - 2026-10-04 · The three campus trial is still unconfirmed. Its registry record is served only through a path that bars automated readers. - 2026-10-05 · The three campus trial of a phone microphone counting fetal movement is still unconfirmed. Its registry record is served only through a path that bars automated readers. - 2026-10-06 · The three campus trial of a phone microphone counting fetal movement is still unconfirmed. Its registry record is served only on a path that bars automated readers. - 2026-10-07 · The three campus trial's registry record is still unconfirmed. The registry bars automated readers. - 2026-10-08 · The three campus trial's registry record remains unconfirmed. The registry still bars automated readers from the record itself. - 2026-10-09 · The fetal movement trial's registry record remains unconfirmed. The registry still bars automated readers. - 2026-10-10 · The fetal movement trial's registry record stays unconfirmed, since the registry bars automated readers. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The registration states what the trial is and how many patients it plans to enroll. > This trial is a prospective, observational, feasibility study of 60 patients that includes both low-risk and high-risk pregnant women to examine the usability of the Womb Watch smartphone application. Source (primary_official): https://clinicaltrials.gov/api/v2/studies/NCT07626112 ### The same record describes the earlier pilot the method rests on. > In our recent pilot STUDY00001552 of 205 pregnant patients, placement of the iPhone10 microphone directly on the maternal abdominal wall was utilized to detect fetal movements. Source (primary_official): https://clinicaltrials.gov/api/v2/studies/NCT07626112 ### It states what the machine assessment did against the patient's own perception in that pilot. > AI assessment of the audio recordings proved superior to maternal perception of fetal movements that were recorded during simultaneous ultrasound (gross fetal movements: 64% audio vs 18% maternal; breathing: 93% vs 3%, hiccups: 73% vs 3%). Source (primary_official): https://clinicaltrials.gov/api/v2/studies/NCT07626112 ### The registration names the Austin site. > Dell Medical School- University of Texas at Austin Source (primary_official): https://clinicaltrials.gov/api/v2/studies/NCT07626112 ### It names the Galveston site. > University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston - UTMB Health Source (primary_official): https://clinicaltrials.gov/api/v2/studies/NCT07626112 ### It names the Houston site. > McGovern Medical School - UTHealth Houston Source (primary_official): https://clinicaltrials.gov/api/v2/studies/NCT07626112 ### The registration states the trial's recruitment status. > RECRUITING Source (primary_official): https://clinicaltrials.gov/api/v2/studies/NCT07626112 ### The registration states the study start date. > 2026-08-06 Source (primary_official): https://clinicaltrials.gov/api/v2/studies/NCT07626112 ### The registration states when the record was last updated. > 2026-09-14 Source (primary_official): https://clinicaltrials.gov/api/v2/studies/NCT07626112 ### The registration states the responsible party's title and affiliation. > Professor of Women's Health Source (primary_official): https://clinicaltrials.gov/api/v2/studies/NCT07626112 --- # UT San Antonio builds a solar powered flood sensor that runs its model on the device instead of a server The University of Texas at San Antonio published an account on September 28th, 2026 of a field ready prototype flood warning node. A team led by an assistant professor of electrical engineering combined four things. Solar energy harvesting, environmental sensing, long range radio and a machine learning model compressed to run on the microcontroller itself. The design point is that the node evaluates flood risk where it stands rather than sending readings to a server. It keeps working when power and network fail in a storm. The university reports a validation accuracy figure from assessment after training rather than a measurement against a real flood. Funding is named as a Texas Coastal Management Program grant awarded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The account names no installation site and no agency operating it, so what exists is a prototype. - Topic: research-and-science - Decided by: The University of Texas at San Antonio (state-agency) - Where: Bexar - Statistical areas: - San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: http://news.utsa.edu/2026/09/ut-san-antonio-researcher-builds-self-powered-smart-warning-system-to-catch-local-floods-before-disaster-strikes/ - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-09-28 · filed: Date the university published the account ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-18 · Admitted on the university's own account. What exists is a prototype, and the accuracy figure the account gives comes from assessment after training rather than from a flood. - 2026-09-21 · The university's account of the flood node still reads as the record holds it. The model still runs on the device rather than somewhere a network has to reach, which is the whole point of the design. - 2026-09-24 · The flood sensor is still described as running its model on the device itself. No network has to reach it for the model to work. - 2026-09-27 · The university's account of the flood sensor that runs its model on the device still reads as published. - 2026-09-30 · The university's account of the flood sensor still reads as published, with the model running on the device rather than on a server. - 2026-10-03 · UTSA's account of the solar powered flood sensor that runs its model on the device still reads as published. - 2026-10-06 · UT San Antonio still describes its solar powered flood sensor as a prototype that runs its model on the device. - 2026-10-09 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-12 · The UT San Antonio flood sensor is still described as a prototype. The account names no city or county installing one. - 2026-10-12 · The university's account is dated September 28th, 2026 on its own page, so the record's publication date now reads September 28th rather than September 8th. - 2026-10-15 · UT San Antonio's flood sensor is still described as a prototype, with no city or county named as installing one. - 2026-10-18 · UT San Antonio still calls its flood sensor a prototype. No city or county is named as installing one. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · UT San Antonio's flood sensor still runs its model on the device instead of a server. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The researcher states what the system does without outside power or a network. > Our system is an off-grid solution. It generates its own power, evaluates flood risk locally right on the device and sends timely warnings without needing external electricity or expensive network lines. Source (primary_official): http://news.utsa.edu/2026/09/ut-san-antonio-researcher-builds-self-powered-smart-warning-system-to-catch-local-floods-before-disaster-strikes/ ### The account describes the method that lets the model run on the node. > a branch of computer science that compresses machine learning algorithms so they can run directly on small, low-power microcontrollers Source (primary_official): http://news.utsa.edu/2026/09/ut-san-antonio-researcher-builds-self-powered-smart-warning-system-to-catch-local-floods-before-disaster-strikes/ ### The university states the accuracy figure and what stage it comes from. > So far, the AI has performed well, achieving 98.82% validation accuracy in initial assessments post-training. Source (primary_official): http://news.utsa.edu/2026/09/ut-san-antonio-researcher-builds-self-powered-smart-warning-system-to-catch-local-floods-before-disaster-strikes/ ### It names who paid for the work. > This project was funded in part by a Texas Coastal Management Program grant awarded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Source (primary_official): http://news.utsa.edu/2026/09/ut-san-antonio-researcher-builds-self-powered-smart-warning-system-to-catch-local-floods-before-disaster-strikes/ --- # Hays County posts the sheriff's promise not to switch on AI report writing without coming back to the court The Hays County Commissioners Court agenda for September 1st, 2026 carried an item acknowledging that the Hays County Sheriff's Office had committed not to activate or implement Axon Draft One. The agenda describes that product as a report writing feature inside a vendor platform. The commitment reaches any new AI based feature the same platform may later offer under the related contract. What makes the item unusual is the condition rather than the refusal. Operational use requires returning to this court for approval, so the decision stays with the elected body rather than with the office holding the contract. The vendor's own product page describes the feature as drafting a report narrative from body worn camera audio. That page says an officer has to review and approve one before it can be submitted. Local reporting says the court voted three to two on September 15th to move the money it had set aside for a possible Axon contract. The money went to two more corrections officer positions. The county's own minutes of that vote are not yet published. - Topic: surveillance-and-policing - Decided by: Hays County Commissioners Court (county) - Where: Hays - Statistical areas: - Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://public.destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=42972&mt=ALL&get_month=9&get_year=2026&dsp=ag&seq=135 - Last checked: 2026-10-18 ## Dates - 2026-09-01 · hearing: Commissioners Court meeting the item was set for - 2026-09-15 · decided: Court moved the money set aside for a possible Axon contract, according to local reporting. The county's minutes of the vote are not yet published ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-18 · Admitted on the county's own agenda. The condition is the substance here, because it leaves activation with the elected court rather than with the office that holds the contract. What the court did with the item is unconfirmed. The county's own Court Minutes archive for 2026 carries nothing later than July 28th, so the disposition is not on the public record today. - 2026-09-21 · Whether the court accepted the sheriff's commitment is still unconfirmed, and so is the commitment's own current wording. The agenda entry it was read from sits on a vendor portal whose exclusion file refuses every client, so the record can't go back to it. The county's own minutes archive would not answer either. - 2026-09-23 · The sheriff's undertaking not to switch the report writing tool on is unconfirmed this run, and the agenda item recording it is the only place the record has it. - 2026-09-23 · The boundary was re-measured rather than assumed. public.destinyhosted.com still refuses every client in its exclusion file, and www.hayscountytx.gov, which carries the same county's agendas, answers 403 to curl and to WebFetch alike. The agenda entry the commitment was read from can't be fetched again and was not routed around. Nothing in its wording is known to have moved. - 2026-09-24 · The court moved the money it had set aside for a possible Axon contract into two corrections officer positions on September 15th. Local reporting puts the vote at three to two. The sheriff's commitment not to switch on the report writing feature now sits beside a budget with nothing in it for the contract. The county's own minutes of the vote are not yet published. - 2026-09-26 · The sheriff's promise to come back to the court before switching on report writing is still what the county has posted. - 2026-09-29 · The sheriff's promise is unconfirmed on a fresh reading of the posted agenda, whose host bars every automated reader. The county's own site still carries the item, and nothing on the record shows the promise withdrawn. - 2026-09-30 · The sheriff's promise is still unconfirmed. The posted agenda sits on a host that bars every automated reader, and the county's own archive lists meeting dates without the item's text. - 2026-10-01 · The sheriff's promise is still unconfirmed. The posted agenda sits on a host that bars every automated reader, and nothing on the record shows the promise withdrawn. - 2026-10-02 · The sheriff's promise is still unconfirmed. The posted agenda sits on a host that bars every automated reader, and nothing on the record shows the promise withdrawn. - 2026-10-03 · The sheriff's promise is still unconfirmed. The posted agenda bars every automated reader, and nothing on the record shows the promise withdrawn. - 2026-10-04 · The sheriff's promise is still unconfirmed. The posted agenda bars every automated reader, and nothing on the record shows the promise withdrawn. - 2026-10-05 · The sheriff's promise to come back to the court before switching on AI report writing is still unconfirmed. The posted agenda bars automated readers, and nothing published shows it withdrawn. - 2026-10-06 · Local reporting still carries the court's September 15th vote moving the Axon money to corrections officers. The sheriff's posted commitment is unconfirmed, because the agenda portal bars automated readers and the county's minutes did not answer. - 2026-10-07 · Community Impact's account of the reallocation away from the AI report writing tool still reads as cited. The county's own agenda and the sheriff's posted promise could not be read, so that part is unconfirmed. - 2026-10-08 · The sheriff's posted promise and the county's own agenda remain unconfirmed, because both still bar automated readers. The published account of the reallocation away from the AI report writing tool is the part the record can still read. - 2026-10-09 · The sheriff's posted promise remains unconfirmed on the county's agenda, which bars automated readers. The published account of the reallocation still reads as cited. - 2026-10-10 · The sheriff's posted promise stays unconfirmed on the county's agenda, which bars automated readers, and the county's archive refused the request. - 2026-10-11 · On September 15th the court voted 3 to 2 to move the money set aside for a possible Axon contract to two more corrections officers, by the published account. - 2026-10-15 · The sheriff's promise to return to the court before switching on report writing stands in the records that answered. The county's archive and the agenda host are unconfirmed. - 2026-10-18 · Community Impact's account still has the money moved away from the Axon contract. The county's minutes, its agenda and the product page are unconfirmed. - 2026-10-24 · The sheriff's promise to come back to the court before using AI report writing is unconfirmed today. The county agenda host bars automated readers and the county archive refused the request. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The agenda names the meeting it was set for. > Commissioners Court – SEPTEMBER 1, 2026 Source (primary_official): https://public.destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=42972&mt=ALL&get_month=9&get_year=2026&dsp=ag&seq=135 ### The item records what the sheriff's office committed to. > Acknowledgement of the Hays County Sheriff's Office's commitment to not activate or implement Axon Draft One Source (primary_official): https://public.destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=42972&mt=ALL&get_month=9&get_year=2026&dsp=ag&seq=135 ### The agenda states what the product is. > an AI-enabled report-writing feature within the Axon AI Era platform Source (primary_official): https://public.destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=42972&mt=ALL&get_month=9&get_year=2026&dsp=ag&seq=135 ### The commitment reaches beyond the one feature, and names what unlocks it. > any new AI-based features the Axon AI Era platform may make available under the related contract without returning to the Hays County Commissioners Court for approval Source (primary_official): https://public.destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=42972&mt=ALL&get_month=9&get_year=2026&dsp=ag&seq=135 ### The vendor states what the feature does. > leveraging generative AI and body-worn camera audio to produce high-quality draft report narratives in seconds Source (primary_corporate): https://www.axon.com/products/draft-one ### The vendor states the review step it builds in. > these narratives cannot be submitted without officer review and approval Source (primary_corporate): https://www.axon.com/products/draft-one ### The county's minutes archive shows how far the published record runs. > 07 28 2026 07 07 2026 06 23 2026 Source (primary_official): https://www.hayscountytx.gov/Archive.aspx?AMID=71 ### The court voted to move the money it had set aside for an Axon contract into jail staffing. > In a 3-2 vote on Sept. 15, the court approved a motion to reallocate the determined funding for a future Axon contract, requesting the funds be used to pay for two additional corrections officers in the Hays County Sheriff’s Office. Source (journalism): https://communityimpact.com/san-marcos-buda-kyle/government/hays-county-commissioners-reallocate-funds-away-from-potential-axon-ai-contract/ ### Local reporting says the court will no longer consider the contract. > The court will no longer consider a future 10-year, $4.5 million contract with the company. Source (journalism): https://communityimpact.com/san-marcos-buda-kyle/government/hays-county-commissioners-reallocate-funds-away-from-potential-axon-ai-contract/ --- # The Hays County Clerk asks the commissioners court to buy AI that writes the county's official minutes The Hays County Commissioners Court agenda for September 15th, 2026 carried an item to authorize the County Clerk's Office to obtain AI Minutes through a vendor. The first year's amount is stated on the agenda. The same item asks the court to waive the county purchasing policy that requires three quotes, so the request is to buy this product without comparing it against others. The vendor's own site describes the product as using AI to write official meeting minutes from a recording, a live session or a pasted transcript. What the agenda does not say is whether a person reviews or certifies the machine's draft before it becomes the county's official record. That is the question the item leaves open. The county's own Court Minutes archive for 2026 carries nothing later than July 28th, so the disposition is not on the public record today. - Topic: state-policy - Decided by: Hays County Commissioners Court (county) - Where: Hays - Statistical areas: - Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX - Status: pending - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://public.destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=42972&mt=ALL&get_month=9&get_year=2026&dsp=ag&seq=136 - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-09-15 · hearing: Commissioners Court meeting the item was set for ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-18 · Admitted on the county's own agenda. The waiver is what distinguishes this from an ordinary software purchase, because it asks the court to buy without the comparison its own policy requires. Whether the court granted either request is unconfirmed. The county's own Court Minutes archive for 2026 carries nothing later than July 28th, so the disposition is not on the public record today. - 2026-09-21 · Whether the court bought the minutes product, and whether it waived the requirement for three quotes, is still unconfirmed. The agenda entry the request was read from sits on a vendor portal whose exclusion file refuses every client, and the county's own minutes archive would not answer. - 2026-09-23 · Whether the clerk's minute writing purchase went through as the agenda proposed is unconfirmed this run, and no vote is on the record either way. - 2026-09-23 · The boundary was re-measured rather than assumed. public.destinyhosted.com still refuses every client in its exclusion file, and www.hayscountytx.gov, which carries the same county's agendas, answers 403 to curl and to WebFetch alike. The agenda entry the commitment was read from can't be fetched again and was not routed around. Nothing in its wording is known to have moved. - 2026-09-26 · The clerk's request to buy software that writes the court's minutes is still pending, with no disposition posted. - 2026-09-29 · The clerk's request is unconfirmed on a fresh reading of the posted agenda, whose host bars every automated reader. No disposition appears on the county's own site. - 2026-09-30 · The clerk's request is still unconfirmed. The posted agenda sits on a host that bars every automated reader, and no disposition appears on the county's own site. - 2026-10-01 · Whether the clerk's request to buy minute writing software is still before the court is unconfirmed. The posted agenda sits on a host that bars every automated reader, and no disposition has been found on the county's own site. - 2026-10-02 · The vendor now calls its product an AI minutes platform for local government. Whether the clerk's request is still before the court is unconfirmed. The posted agenda sits on a host that bars every automated reader, and the county has posted no disposition. - 2026-10-03 · The vendor now says its product writes the minutes and the government's own staff have the final word on them. Whether the clerk's request is still before the court is unconfirmed, because the posted agenda bars every automated reader. - 2026-10-04 · Whether the clerk's request is still before the court is unconfirmed. The posted agenda bars every automated reader and no disposition has been published. - 2026-10-05 · Whether the clerk's request for AI that writes the minutes is still before the court is unconfirmed. The posted agenda bars automated readers and no disposition has been published. - 2026-10-06 · Whether the clerk's request for AI written minutes is still before the court is unconfirmed. The posted agenda bars automated readers and the county's minutes did not answer. - 2026-10-07 · Whether the clerk's request for AI written minutes is still before the court is unconfirmed. The posted agenda bars automated readers and the county's own site refused the request. - 2026-10-08 · Whether the clerk's request for AI written minutes is still before the court remains unconfirmed. The posted agenda still bars automated readers. - 2026-10-09 · Whether the clerk's request for AI written minutes is still before the court remains unconfirmed. The agenda still bars automated readers. - 2026-10-10 · Whether the clerk's request for AI written minutes is still before the court stays unconfirmed. The agenda bars automated readers. - 2026-10-12 · The clerk's request for AI written minutes is still on the record the county posts. No purchase approval has followed it. - 2026-10-15 · The clerk's request for AI written minutes is still on the county's posted record. The agenda host and the county archive are unconfirmed. - 2026-10-18 · The clerk's request for AI written minutes is still on the posted record that answered. The county archive and the agenda host are unconfirmed. - 2026-10-24 · The Hays County Clerk's request to buy AI that writes the county's official minutes still reads as the vendor's account describes it. The county agenda stays unconfirmed, since its host bars automated readers. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The agenda names the meeting it was set for. > Commissioners Court – SEPTEMBER 15, 2026 Source (primary_official): https://public.destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=42972&mt=ALL&get_month=9&get_year=2026&dsp=ag&seq=136 ### The item states what the clerk's office asked for. > authorize the County Clerk's Office to obtain AI Minutes through Govably, Inc. Source (primary_official): https://public.destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=42972&mt=ALL&get_month=9&get_year=2026&dsp=ag&seq=136 ### The agenda states the first year's amount. > in the amount of $19,200.00 for year one Source (primary_official): https://public.destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=42972&mt=ALL&get_month=9&get_year=2026&dsp=ag&seq=136 ### The same item asks the court to set aside the county's own comparison rule. > authorize a waiver to the purchasing policy of obtaining three quotes Source (primary_official): https://public.destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=42972&mt=ALL&get_month=9&get_year=2026&dsp=ag&seq=136 ### The vendor says its product writes the minutes and the government's own staff have the final word on them. > Govably writes the minutes, but your team has the final word. Source (primary_corporate): https://www.govably.com/ ### The county's minutes archive shows how far the published record runs. > 07 28 2026 07 07 2026 06 23 2026 Source (primary_official): https://www.hayscountytx.gov/Archive.aspx?AMID=71 --- # Hays County takes up a policy on how it governs AI in surveillance The Hays County Commissioners Court agenda for September 8th, 2026 carried an item on how the county governs its own use of artificial intelligence in surveillance. The item names equipment and software alongside the collection and analysis of data. It contemplated adopting a policy statement that would set guidelines and limits on the AI enabled surveillance technologies the county uses. The reach is general rather than product specific. That makes it the standing rule beside the narrower promise the same court posted a week earlier. The item immediately after it on the same agenda concerns two contract amendments with a different vendor. One of those is for report writing services. Nothing on either page connects the two. The county's own Court Minutes archive for 2026 carries nothing later than July 28th. The disposition is not on the public record today. - Topic: surveillance-and-policing - Decided by: Hays County Commissioners Court (county) - Where: Hays - Statistical areas: - Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX - Status: pending - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://public.destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=42972&mt=ALL&get_month=9&get_year=2026&dsp=ag&seq=141 - Last checked: 2026-09-26 ## Dates - 2026-09-08 · hearing: Commissioners Court meeting the item was set for ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-18 · Admitted on the county's own agenda. This is the standing rule beside the narrower promise the same court posted a week earlier. The policy text itself is not attached to the agenda entry. Whether it was adopted is unconfirmed. The county's own Court Minutes archive for 2026 carries nothing later than July 28th. - 2026-09-21 · Whether the county adopted a policy on AI in surveillance is still unconfirmed, and the policy text is still not attached to anything public. The agenda entry sits on a vendor portal whose exclusion file refuses every client, and the county's own minutes archive would not answer. - 2026-09-23 · Whether the county adopted the surveillance policy statement its agenda contemplated is unconfirmed this run. - 2026-09-23 · The boundary was re-measured rather than assumed. public.destinyhosted.com still refuses every client in its exclusion file, and www.hayscountytx.gov, which carries the same county's agendas, answers 403 to curl and to WebFetch alike. The agenda entry the commitment was read from can't be fetched again and was not routed around. Nothing in its wording is known to have moved. - 2026-09-26 · Hays County's policy on artificial intelligence in surveillance is still pending, with no disposition posted. - 2026-09-29 · The surveillance policy item is unconfirmed on a fresh reading of the posted agenda, whose host bars every automated reader. No disposition appears on the county's own site. - 2026-09-30 · The surveillance policy item is still unconfirmed. The posted agenda sits on a host that bars every automated reader, and no disposition appears on the county's own site. - 2026-10-01 · Whether the county has acted on its policy for AI in surveillance is unconfirmed. The posted agenda sits on a host that bars every automated reader, and no disposition has been found on the county's own site. - 2026-10-02 · Whether the county has acted on its policy for AI in surveillance is still unconfirmed. The posted agenda sits on a host that bars every automated reader and the county has posted no disposition. - 2026-10-03 · Whether the county has acted on its policy for AI in surveillance is still unconfirmed. The posted agenda bars every automated reader and no disposition has been posted. - 2026-10-04 · Whether the county has acted on its policy for AI in surveillance is still unconfirmed. The posted agenda bars every automated reader and no disposition has been published. - 2026-10-05 · Whether Hays County has acted on its policy for AI in surveillance is still unconfirmed. The posted agenda bars automated readers and no disposition has been published. - 2026-10-06 · Whether Hays County has adopted its policy on AI in surveillance is unconfirmed. The posted agenda bars automated readers and the county's minutes did not answer. - 2026-10-07 · Whether Hays County has adopted its policy on AI in surveillance is unconfirmed. The posted agenda bars automated readers and the county's own site refused the request. - 2026-10-08 · Whether Hays County has adopted a policy on AI in surveillance remains unconfirmed. The posted agenda still bars automated readers. - 2026-10-09 · Whether Hays County has adopted a policy on AI in surveillance remains unconfirmed. The posted agenda still bars automated readers. - 2026-10-10 · Whether Hays County has adopted a policy on AI in surveillance stays unconfirmed, since the posted agenda bars automated readers. - 2026-10-24 · Hays County's policy on governing AI in surveillance is unconfirmed today, since the county agenda host bars automated readers and the county archive refused the request. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The agenda names the meeting it was set for. > Commissioners Court – September 8, 2026 Source (primary_official): https://public.destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=42972&mt=ALL&get_month=9&get_year=2026&dsp=ag&seq=141 ### The item states the ground it covers. > regarding the use, implementation, oversight, and governance of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in connection with surveillance equipment, technologies, programs, software, systems, data collection, data analysis, and related services Source (primary_official): https://public.destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=42972&mt=ALL&get_month=9&get_year=2026&dsp=ag&seq=141 ### It states what the court was asked to consider adopting. > possible adoption of a policy statement establishing guidelines, standards, safeguards, and limitations concerning the use of AI-enabled surveillance technologies by Hays County Source (primary_official): https://public.destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=42972&mt=ALL&get_month=9&get_year=2026&dsp=ag&seq=141 ### The next item on the same agenda concerns a separate vendor's report writing services. > one for NG911 interface and one for report writing services Source (primary_official): https://public.destinyhosted.com/agenda_publish.cfm?id=42972&mt=ALL&get_month=9&get_year=2026&dsp=ag&seq=141 ### The county's minutes archive shows how far the published record runs. > 07 28 2026 07 07 2026 06 23 2026 Source (primary_official): https://www.hayscountytx.gov/Archive.aspx?AMID=71 --- # Governor directs the water board to enforce the state water use survey against data centers that did not return it The Office of the Governor issued a directive to the Texas Water Development Board on September 14th, 2026. It tells the board to enforce the water use survey requirement against major water users, naming data centers. The directive covers failures already made as well as future ones. The reason the directive gives for needing the numbers is the state water plan. The board writes it and can't do that while it is denied detail on what is consumed now and what will be. That sentence is the Governor's office describing the board's position rather than the board speaking. The Texas Water Code requires a complete and accurate water use survey. A recipient who does not complete and return it commits an offense punishable as a crime. One who returns it late becomes ineligible for TCEQ permits, amendments or renewals under Chapter 11 of that code. The board is told to refer noncompliance to the County or District Attorney and to notify TCEQ for possible permit disqualification. It is also told to partner with the grid operator on the data center audit the Governor ordered on August 3rd, 2026. It must report back on its enforcement by October 14th, 2026. - Topic: land-water-and-permitting - Decided by: Office of the Texas Governor (governor) - Where: Statewide - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-directs-twdb-to-penalize-data-center-reporting-failures - Last checked: 2026-09-29 ## Dates - 2026-09-14 · ordered: Directive issued to the Texas Water Development Board - 2026-10-14 · administrative deadline: Board must report to the Office of the Governor on its enforcement activities ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-19 · The directive is published and the board has not yet said how it will enforce. The date it has to report back on has not arrived. - 2026-09-23 · The water board is still enforcing the survey on the Governor's instruction, and the law behind it still has not changed. - 2026-09-26 · The water board is still enforcing the survey on the Governor's instruction, and the law behind it is unchanged. - 2026-09-29 · The water board is still enforcing the water use survey against data centers on the Governor's instruction, under an unchanged Water Code. - 2026-10-02 · The Governor's directive to the water board is unconfirmed this run. His office posts it on a site that bars automated readers. - 2026-10-03 · The Governor's directive to the water board is still unconfirmed. His office posts it on a site that bars automated readers. - 2026-10-04 · The Governor's directive to the water board is still unconfirmed. His office posts it on a site that bars automated readers. - 2026-10-05 · The Governor's directive to the water board is still unconfirmed this time. His office's site bars automated readers. - 2026-10-06 · The Governor's directive to the water board is still unconfirmed this time. His office's site bars automated readers. - 2026-10-07 · The governor's directive to the water board is still unconfirmed on its own page, which bars automated readers. - 2026-10-08 · The governor's directive to the water board is still unconfirmed on its own page, which still bars automated readers. The water board's report back to the governor is due next week. - 2026-10-09 · The directive to the water board is still unconfirmed on its own page, which bars automated readers. The board's report back is due next week. - 2026-10-10 · The directive to the water board stays unconfirmed on its own page, which bars automated readers. The board's report back is due within the week. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The Governor states what the board is being told to do. > I direct the Texas Water Development Board to use its enforcement authority to penalize past failures and to impose legal consequences for any future failure to comply. Source (primary_official): https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-directs-twdb-to-penalize-data-center-reporting-failures ### The directive states the duty the Governor says data centers share. > Data centers must share the duty to protect Texas water Source (primary_official): https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-directs-twdb-to-penalize-data-center-reporting-failures ### The directive states why the board needs the figures at all. > TWDB is charged with developing a state water plan that meets the needs of Texans and cannot perform that task if it is denied detailed information on existing and anticipated water consumption. Source (primary_official): https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-directs-twdb-to-penalize-data-center-reporting-failures ### The directive states the criminal consequence of not returning the survey. > A data center that fails to complete and return the survey commits an offense punishable as a crime. Source (primary_official): https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-directs-twdb-to-penalize-data-center-reporting-failures ### The directive states the permitting consequence of not returning it on time. > A data center that fails to timely complete and return the survey is ineligible for TCEQ permits, amendments, or renewals under Chapter 11 of the Texas Water Code. Source (primary_official): https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-directs-twdb-to-penalize-data-center-reporting-failures ### The directive states what the Governor says has already happened. > Major water users, including data centers, appear to have committed civil and criminal violations through failure to provide TWDB with required information about water usage. Source (primary_official): https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-directs-twdb-to-penalize-data-center-reporting-failures ### The directive sets the date the board has to report back on. > TWDB shall update the Office of the Governor by October 14, 2026, on the progress of its enforcement activities Source (primary_official): https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-directs-twdb-to-penalize-data-center-reporting-failures --- # Grid operator asks the water board's questions and gives data centers until October 12th ERCOT issued Market Notice M-B091426-01 on September 14th, 2026, opening a Request for Information on the state and community impacts of data centers. Its stated audience is developers of data centers of 25 MW and larger. The body narrows the actual recipients to two defined groups rather than every developer of that size. It is issued jointly with the Public Utility Commission of Texas and the Texas Water Development Board. Section C carries the water questions. The water board's Executive Administrator authorized the grid operator to ask them on the board's behalf, and the grid operator forwards the answers back. A developer does not file its own response. Its transmission or distribution provider files it, with a notarized attestation, through the operator's own web platform. Responses are due at 5 p.m. Central Prevailing Time on October 12th, 2026. Not responding is reported to the commission and to the Office of the Governor, and under Texas Water Code 16.012 an incomplete answer to Section C carries criminal exposure. The notice states in its own words that this is a separate request from the Batch Zero eligibility one issued on September 9th, 2026. A report on what the answers show is expected by December 10th, 2026. - Topic: land-water-and-permitting - Decided by: Electric Reliability Council of Texas (state-agency) - Where: Statewide - Status: pending - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://www.ercot.com/services/comm/mkt_notices/M-B091426-01 - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-09-14 · filed: Market Notice M-B091426-01 issued - 2026-10-12 · administrative deadline: Complete responses due at 5 p.m. Central Prevailing Time - 2026-12-10 · expires: Date by which the operator expects to publish a report on the responses ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-19 · The request is open and the answers are not due yet. Nothing about what the water questions return is known today. - 2026-09-23 · The grid operator's questionnaire still runs to October 12th, and a data center that lets that date pass still answers for it. - 2026-09-26 · The grid operator's deadline for the water board's questions still stands. - 2026-09-29 · ERCOT's deadline for data centers to answer the water board's questions still stands. - 2026-10-02 · Data centers still have until October 12th to answer the water board's questions through the grid operator. - 2026-10-05 · ERCOT's deadline for data centers to answer the water board's questions still stands at October 12th. - 2026-10-06 · The grid operator's questionnaire carrying the water board's questions still stands, with data centers still due to answer by October 12th. - 2026-10-07 · The grid operator's questionnaire still carries the water board's questions, and the deadline for data centers to answer has not moved. - 2026-10-08 · The grid operator's questionnaire still carries the water board's questions, and data centers face the same deadline to answer. - 2026-10-09 · Checked and unchanged. Still open, with no dated movement. - 2026-10-10 · ERCOT's request for data center answers to the water board's questions still stands as posted, with its deadline unchanged. - 2026-10-11 · ERCOT's request for data center answers still stands. Responses are due October 12th. - 2026-10-12 · The grid operator's request for data center answers to the water board's questions still stands, with responses due today. - 2026-10-15 · ERCOT's request reads as posted. The deadline it set for data centers has passed and no report has been published. - 2026-10-18 · ERCOT's request carrying the water board's questions reads as posted. Its deadline for data centers has passed and no report is out. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-10-24 · The water board's questions still went to data centers through the grid operator, with answers due by the October 12th deadline the notice set. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The notice carries its own number and subject. > M-B091426-01 Issuance of Request for Information Regarding Data Center State and Community Impacts Source (primary_official): https://www.ercot.com/services/comm/mkt_notices/M-B091426-01 ### The notice names who has to answer it. > Developers of Data Centers 25 MW and Larger Source (primary_official): https://www.ercot.com/services/comm/mkt_notices/M-B091426-01 ### The notice states the criminal exposure attached to the water questions. > In accordance with Texas Water Code 16.012, any failure to fully respond to the questions in Section C may subject an RFI recipient to criminal penalties and other potential consequences. Source (primary_official): https://www.ercot.com/services/comm/mkt_notices/M-B091426-01 ### The notice sets the hour and the date responses are due. > 5 p.m. Central Prevailing Time (CPT) on October 12, 2026 Source (primary_official): https://www.ercot.com/services/comm/mkt_notices/M-B091426-01 ### The notice states who a silence is reported to. > Failure to respond to the RFI or any part thereof will be reported to the PUC and the Office of the Governor. Source (primary_official): https://www.ercot.com/services/comm/mkt_notices/M-B091426-01 ### The notice states that the water questions are asked for the water board and answered back to it. > The Executive Administrator of the TWDB has authorized ERCOT to issue the questions in Section C on TWDB's behalf, and ERCOT will forward the responses to these questions to TWDB. Source (primary_official): https://www.ercot.com/services/comm/mkt_notices/M-B091426-01 ### The notice states in its own words that this is not the earlier eligibility request. > This RFI is separate from the Batch Zero Eligibility RFI issued on September 9, 2026. Source (primary_official): https://www.ercot.com/services/comm/mkt_notices/M-B091426-01 ### The notice names what a complete response has to carry. > a notarized attestation from the data center developer Source (primary_official): https://www.ercot.com/services/comm/mkt_notices/M-B091426-01 ### The notice gives the date a reader can expect to learn what the answers showed. > ERCOT expects to publish this report no later than December 10, 2026. Source (primary_official): https://www.ercot.com/services/comm/mkt_notices/M-B091426-01 ### The notice names the party that submits the response and the platform it goes through. > Each TSP or DSP must submit the RFI in RIOO on behalf of the data center developer. Source (primary_official): https://www.ercot.com/services/comm/mkt_notices/M-B091426-01 --- # UT Arlington replaces its business analytics degrees with artificial intelligence degrees The University of Texas at Arlington College of Business announced on September 14th, 2026 that it had launched artificial intelligence degrees. They are a bachelor's program and a master's program in artificial intelligence. The new degrees take the place of the college's existing Business Analytics programs rather than sitting beside them. The college describes a redesigned curriculum aimed at using the technology for business strategy, productivity and decision making. New certificate offerings accompany the degrees. The announcement gives no exact launch date, start term or first cohort size. - Topic: health-and-education - Decided by: University of Texas at Arlington College of Business (state-agency) - Where: Tarrant - Statistical areas: - Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://www.uta.edu/news/news-releases/2026/09/14/uta-launches-ai-degree-programs-for-business - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-09-14 · filed: Publication date on the university's newsroom. The release does not give an exact launch date ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-19 · The university states that the artificial intelligence degrees replace the Business Analytics programs. The release does not say what happens to a student already enrolled in one. - 2026-09-23 · The Arlington campus still offers artificial intelligence degrees where the analytics degrees used to be. - 2026-09-26 · UT Arlington still offers artificial intelligence degrees where the business analytics degrees used to be. - 2026-09-29 · UT Arlington's artificial intelligence degrees still stand where its business analytics degrees were. - 2026-10-02 · UT Arlington's AI degrees still stand in place of its business analytics degrees. - 2026-10-05 · UT Arlington's AI degrees still stand in place of its business analytics degrees. - 2026-10-08 · UT Arlington's AI degrees still stand where its business analytics degrees used to be. - 2026-10-11 · UT Arlington's AI degrees still stand in place of its business analytics degrees. - 2026-10-15 · UT Arlington's AI degrees still stand in place of its business analytics degrees. - 2026-10-18 · UT Arlington's AI degrees still stand in place of its business analytics degrees. - 2026-10-22 · The university's release did not answer today, so the replacement of the business analytics degrees is unconfirmed since its last check. - 2026-10-23 · The university's release could not be reached today, so the change from business analytics degrees to AI degrees stays unconfirmed since October 18th. - 2026-10-24 · UT Arlington's move from business analytics degrees to artificial intelligence degrees is unconfirmed today, since the university's release did not answer. - 2026-10-24 · The university confirms that its AI for Business degrees replace Business Analytics and that certificates accompany them. September 14th, 2026 is the release's publication date. The release gives no exact launch date, start term or first cohort size. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The university states that the new degrees replace the old ones rather than joining them. > Artificial Intelligence for Business replaces Business Analytics Source (primary_official): https://www.uta.edu/news/news-releases/2026/09/14/uta-launches-ai-degree-programs-for-business ### The university states the levels of the two new degrees. > The University of Texas at Arlington's College of Business has launched bachelor's and master's degree programs in artificial intelligence Source (primary_official): https://www.uta.edu/news/news-releases/2026/09/14/uta-launches-ai-degree-programs-for-business ### The announcement states that certificates accompany the degrees. > the college is expanding opportunities for students and professionals to build AI skills through new certificate offerings Source (primary_official): https://www.uta.edu/news/news-releases/2026/09/14/uta-launches-ai-degree-programs-for-business --- # El Paso passes two plate reader items as revised, filed to take city-sited readers down and bar new contracts The El Paso City Council passed two items on September 15th, 2026, and its own meeting record marks each one approved as revised. The text of the revisions is not on that record. As filed, the first directed the city manager to remove within 60 days all Flock Safety fixed automated license plate reader cameras and related hardware. That reached city property, city right of way and anything otherwise within the city's control, whoever owns the hardware. As filed, the second barred the city manager from entering, executing, renewing or extending any such contract unless the council directs otherwise. It reached Flock Safety and any other provider of fixed networked plate readers. It gave the city attorney 30 days to return a resolution. Whether those terms survived the revisions is unconfirmed. Both items were sponsored by members of the council rather than brought by staff. - Topic: surveillance-and-policing - Decided by: El Paso City Council (city) - Where: El Paso - Statistical areas: - El Paso, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://elpasotexas.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1438138&GUID=311EC2E9-C010-4038-B718-400EE54FD9C2&Options=info|&Search= - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-09-15 · decided: Date of the council meeting that passed both items as revised ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-20 · Admitted to the record. The council's own agenda carries both directions and records both as passed. The removal order and the contract bar are on the city's published legislative record rather than in an account of the meeting. - 2026-09-23 · El Paso's order still stands, and the city manager is still barred from signing another one. - 2026-09-26 · El Paso's order still stands. The plate readers are to come down and the city manager may not sign another. - 2026-09-29 · El Paso's order that city-sited plate readers come down, and that the city manager sign no new one, still stands. - 2026-10-01 · Reworded. The title and summary had stated the items as filed as though the council enacted them. The council's record marks both approved as revised and the revision text is not published, so every directive is now marked as filed. No source or quote changed. - 2026-10-04 · El Paso's two plate reader items still stand as the council passed them in revised form. - 2026-10-07 · Both of El Paso's plate reader items stand as the council passed them in revised form. - 2026-10-10 · El Paso's two plate reader items still stand in the revised form the council passed. - 2026-10-15 · El Paso's two plate reader items stand in the revised form the council passed. - 2026-10-18 · El Paso's two plate reader items still stand in the revised form the council passed. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · El Paso's two plate reader items still stand as revised, with city-sited readers coming down and new contracts barred. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### As filed, the first item directed the city manager to take the cameras down within 60 days, whoever owns the hardware. > Discussion and action directing the City Manager to ensure the removal, within 60 days, of all Flock Safety fixed automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras and related hardware located on or within City property, City right-of-way, or otherwise within the City's control, regardless of whether such cameras or hardware are owned by Flock Safety, the City of El Paso, or any third party, including by physically removing such equipment or coordinating its removal by the appropriate party. Source (primary_official): https://elpasotexas.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1438138&GUID=311EC2E9-C010-4038-B718-400EE54FD9C2&Options=info|&Search= ### As filed, a second item barred the city manager from signing another such contract without the council saying so. > Discussion and action directing the City Manager to refrain from entering into, executing, renewing, or extending any contract, agreement, or other arrangement with Flock Safety or any other provider for the acquisition, installation, operation, maintenance, or use of fixed, networked automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras or substantially similar technology, unless otherwise directed by subsequent action of the City Council; and directing the City Attorney to draft and return to the City Council within 30 days a resolution to further effectuate this direction. Source (primary_official): https://elpasotexas.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1438138&GUID=311EC2E9-C010-4038-B718-400EE54FD9C2&Options=info|&Search= --- # The National Science Foundation puts Texas Southern University in charge of one of five regional nodes in a new HBCU network for AI and quantum science The National Science Foundation made a cooperative agreement to Texas Southern University in Houston for the HBCU AI and Quantum Innovation Network. The award record carries an award date of September 17th, 2026 and a start date of October 1st, 2026. Clark Atlanta University leads the network. The work runs through five regional nodes and Texas Southern leads one of them. Daniel Vrinceanu is the principal investigator. The stated work is identifying institutional strengths and needs. It also covers regional meetings and workshops. It covers shared training resources and pathways for students and faculty into these fields. The award sits in the foundation's Directorate for Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships. - Topic: research-and-science - Decided by: U.S. National Science Foundation (federal) - Where: Harris - Statistical areas: - Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards.json?id=2619041&printFields=id,title,awardeeName,awardeeCity,awardeeStateCode,piFirstName,piLastName,date,startDate,expDate,estimatedTotalAmt,fundsObligatedAmt,fundProgramName,abstractText - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-09-17 · decided: Award date on the federal award record - 2026-10-01 · effective: Start date on the federal award record - 2028-09-30 · expires: Expiration date on the federal award record ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-20 · Admitted to the record. The federal award record carries the dates, the awardee, the principal investigator and the abstract that names Texas Southern as one of five node leads. - 2026-09-23 · Texas Southern still leads its regional node in the network. - 2026-09-24 · Texas Southern is still the lead institution for its regional node, and the award record shows no change to the network around it. - 2026-09-26 · Texas Southern still leads its regional node in the HBCU network. - 2026-09-27 · The foundation's award naming Texas Southern to lead a regional node still stands as made. - 2026-09-28 · The award record still puts Texas Southern at the head of one of the network's regional nodes, with its start date days away and unchanged. - 2026-09-29 · Texas Southern still leads one of the regional nodes in the NSF network, and its start date has not moved. - 2026-09-30 · Texas Southern still holds one of the regional nodes in the foundation's network, and the award's dates have not moved. - 2026-10-01 · Texas Southern's regional node in the foundation's network still carries the award date and the October 1st start the award record gave it. - 2026-10-04 · The foundation's award still names Texas Southern University as the lead, and the award page reads as it did. - 2026-10-07 · The foundation's award page still names Texas Southern University as the lead of its regional node. - 2026-10-10 · The foundation's award still names Texas Southern University as lead of its regional node. - 2026-10-15 · Texas Southern University is still named lead of its regional node in the foundation's award. - 2026-10-18 · Texas Southern University is still named lead of one regional node in the foundation's HBCU network. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · Texas Southern University still leads one of the regional nodes in the NSF network for AI and quantum science. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The award record names the network and the award instrument. > Collaborative Research: The HBCU AI - Quantum Innovation Network (HAQIN) Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards.json?id=2619041&printFields=id,title,awardeeName,awardeeCity,awardeeStateCode,piFirstName,piLastName,date,startDate,expDate,estimatedTotalAmt,fundsObligatedAmt,fundProgramName,abstractText ### The abstract names the five institutions leading regional nodes and the lead institution. > Clark Atlanta University will serve as the lead institution, and the project will operate through five regional nodes led by Clark Atlanta University, Central State University, Norfolk State University, North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University, and Texas Southern University. Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards.json?id=2619041&printFields=id,title,awardeeName,awardeeCity,awardeeStateCode,piFirstName,piLastName,date,startDate,expDate,estimatedTotalAmt,fundsObligatedAmt,fundProgramName,abstractText ### The abstract states what the network is for. > This project will establish a national network of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and partner organizations focused on artificial intelligence (AI) and quantum science. Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards.json?id=2619041&printFields=id,title,awardeeName,awardeeCity,awardeeStateCode,piFirstName,piLastName,date,startDate,expDate,estimatedTotalAmt,fundsObligatedAmt,fundProgramName,abstractText --- # The National Science Foundation funds a Texas A&M project to build AI digital twins of small and mid-sized water systems The National Science Foundation made a standard grant to the Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station in College Station. The work is AI enabled digital twins of freshwater infrastructure under cascading hazards. The award record carries an award date of September 9th, 2026 and a start date of September 15th, 2026. It expires on August 31st, 2029. Sudipta Chowdhury is the principal investigator. The abstract describes water infrastructure that is getting harder to run. It names aging assets and deferred maintenance. It names climate driven hazards and power outages and water quality variability. A disruption that starts in one component can propagate through the connected networks. The abstract says current utility practice leans on monitoring systems and historical records and reactive emergency protocols. Those give limited ability to anticipate how a local anomaly escalates. The award sits in the foundation's Division of Civil, Mechanical, and Manufacturing Innovation. - Topic: land-water-and-permitting - Decided by: U.S. National Science Foundation (federal) - Where: Brazos - Statistical areas: - College Station-Bryan, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards.json?id=2640086&printFields=id,title,awardeeName,awardeeCity,awardeeStateCode,piFirstName,piLastName,date,startDate,expDate,estimatedTotalAmt,fundsObligatedAmt,fundProgramName,abstractText - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-09-09 · decided: Award date on the federal award record - 2026-09-15 · effective: Start date on the federal award record - 2029-08-31 · expires: Expiration date on the federal award record ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-20 · Admitted to the record. The federal award record carries the dates, the awardee, the principal investigator and the abstract that states the objective. - 2026-09-23 · The digital twin project still aims at the small and mid-sized systems that have the least to spend on one. - 2026-09-26 · The A&M digital twin project is still aimed at the small and mid-sized water systems. - 2026-09-29 · The Texas A&M digital twin project is still aimed at small and mid-sized water systems. - 2026-10-02 · The Texas A&M digital twin project is still aimed at small and mid-sized water systems. - 2026-10-05 · The NSF award for AI digital twins of smaller Texas manufacturers at Texas A&M still stands. - 2026-10-08 · Texas A&M's NSF award for AI digital twins of smaller Texas manufacturers is still active. - 2026-10-11 · Texas A&M's NSF award for AI digital twins of smaller manufacturers remains active. - 2026-10-15 · Texas A&M's award for AI digital twins of smaller water systems remains active. - 2026-10-18 · The Texas A&M project for AI digital twins of smaller water systems is still funded. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · The NSF award for AI digital twins of small and mid-sized water systems at Texas A&M is still active. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The award record names the project. > Collaborative Research: AI-Enabled Digital Twins for Resilient Freshwater Infrastructure and Communities under Cascading Hazards Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards.json?id=2640086&printFields=id,title,awardeeName,awardeeCity,awardeeStateCode,piFirstName,piLastName,date,startDate,expDate,estimatedTotalAmt,fundsObligatedAmt,fundProgramName,abstractText ### The abstract states the objective. > The objective of this project is to support research on a new AI-enabled cyber-physical-social paradigm for predicting, managing, and mitigating cascading disruptions in freshwater infrastructure systems. Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards.json?id=2640086&printFields=id,title,awardeeName,awardeeCity,awardeeStateCode,piFirstName,piLastName,date,startDate,expDate,estimatedTotalAmt,fundsObligatedAmt,fundProgramName,abstractText ### The abstract names what current utility practice can and can't do. > Current utility practices often rely on monitoring systems, historical records, and reactive emergency protocols that provide limited ability to anticipate how local anomalies escalate into broader service disruptions. Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards.json?id=2640086&printFields=id,title,awardeeName,awardeeCity,awardeeStateCode,piFirstName,piLastName,date,startDate,expDate,estimatedTotalAmt,fundsObligatedAmt,fundProgramName,abstractText --- # Richardson ISD drafts a legislative ask that puts classroom AI guidance first The Richardson Independent School District board reviewed a draft of the district's 2027 legislative priorities at its September 18th, 2026 meeting. The draft is built on three areas and the first of them is the responsible use of technology and artificial intelligence. That priority asks the Legislature for resources and guidance for the thoughtful use of artificial intelligence in education, alongside age appropriate approaches to screen time. The district says it gathered the input behind the draft through community roundtables with parent teacher associations, local chambers of commerce, higher education partners and other community organizations. The board is expected to vote on the final priorities on October 15th. The draft asks for resources and guidance and does not say what the state already provides, so nothing here establishes whether any exists. That is what makes this a record of where classroom AI rules are actually being written. - Topic: health-and-education - Decided by: Richardson Independent School District Board of Trustees (school-district) - Where: Dallas - Statistical areas: - Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX - Status: pending - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://web.risd.org/home/september-2026-board-meeting/ - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-09-18 · filed: Board meeting at which the draft priorities were reviewed - 2026-10-15 · decided: Date the district says the board is expected to vote on the final priorities ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-20 · Admitted to the record. The district's own meeting recap carries the three priorities and the date the board is expected to adopt them. The draft is public before the vote rather than after it. - 2026-09-23 · The Richardson district's legislative ask still puts classroom guidance ahead of everything else on its list. - 2026-09-26 · Richardson ISD's draft legislative ask still puts classroom guidance on artificial intelligence first. - 2026-09-29 · Classroom guidance on AI is still the first item in Richardson ISD's draft legislative requests. - 2026-10-02 · Classroom AI guidance still heads Richardson ISD's draft list of legislative requests. - 2026-10-05 · Richardson ISD's draft legislative ask still puts classroom AI guidance first, with no board adoption posted. - 2026-10-08 · Richardson ISD's draft legislative ask still leads with classroom AI guidance, and the board has not adopted it. - 2026-10-09 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-10-10 · Richardson ISD's draft legislative ask still puts classroom AI guidance first, and nothing on the district's page shows it adopted yet. - 2026-10-11 · Richardson ISD's legislative ask still puts classroom AI guidance first. The district's page shows no adoption yet. - 2026-10-12 · Richardson ISD's draft legislative ask still leads with classroom AI guidance. The board has not adopted it. - 2026-10-15 · Richardson ISD's draft legislative ask still leads with classroom AI guidance. - 2026-10-18 · Richardson ISD's draft legislative ask still puts classroom AI guidance first. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-10-24 · Richardson ISD's draft legislative ask still puts classroom AI guidance first. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The board reviewed a draft built on three areas, with technology and AI first. > The Board reviewed a draft of RISD's 2027 Legislative Priorities, focused on three key areas: promoting the responsible use of technology and AI, closing critical funding gaps, and reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens. Source (primary_official): https://web.risd.org/home/september-2026-board-meeting/ ### The priority itself asks the state for resources and guidance. > Promote responsible use of technology and AI by supporting age-appropriate approaches to screen time and providing resources and guidance for the thoughtful use of artificial intelligence in education. Source (primary_official): https://web.risd.org/home/september-2026-board-meeting/ ### The district names the date the board is expected to adopt the priorities. > The Board is expected to vote on the final Legislative Priorities on October 15. Source (primary_official): https://web.risd.org/home/september-2026-board-meeting/ --- # Dallas issues its first code citations from the AI cameras on its brush trucks The City of Dallas put AI enabled cameras on its sanitation brush trucks to photograph parcels from the public right of way and flag code violations. A December 9th, 2025 briefing to the council's Finance Committee set out the terms and drew a line under what the system would not be. It named automated ticketing and public safety surveillance among the three things it is not, and it stated that a human stands in the loop for all actions. The cameras went fully operational over the summer of 2026. A memo the city manager sent the council on September 8th, 2026 is reported to say that 57 citations have been issued at 34 properties. The same memo is reported to say that 39 of those citations went to three southern Dallas council districts. It is also reported to say the cameras scanned 10,000 properties and produced 3,700 violations that drew notices. The city's position is that the letters it sends are courtesy notices rather than warnings. The letter itself is reported to carry the words violations identified and to ask the owner to correct them to avoid further enforcement action. The assistant director of Code Compliance was asked about the difference and said you could call that a warning. At a committee meeting on October 19th the city reported 50 cameras on bulky trash trucks since mid April. Staff had reviewed 5,318 observations, sent 2,928 courtesy notices and made 473 field inspections, with 374 voluntary corrections and 101 formal enforcement actions. The city says those figures are not a step by step count from camera to enforcement. It plans to soften the notice's wording. Faces and license plates are blurred and images are kept for 12 months, and a council member called for an audit of the images. - Topic: surveillance-and-policing - Decided by: City of Dallas (city) - Where: Dallas - Statistical areas: - Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://dallascityhall.com/government/citymanager/Documents/Council%20Materials/A.%20Sanitation%20and%20Code.pdf - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2025-12-09 · hearing: Finance Committee briefing at which the program's terms were presented - 2025-12-10 · decided: Date the briefing gave for council consideration of the item - 2026-09-08 · filed: Date of the city manager memo reporting the first citations - 2026-10-19 · hearing: Council committee briefing on the camera program ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-21 · Admitted on the city's own Finance Committee briefing, which is where the terms and the three disclaimers are written down. The reported outcome comes from a city manager memo the city has not published at an address a reader can open. Every figure from it is carried here as reported rather than as read. What the committee does with the program on October 19th is the next thing to watch. - 2026-09-26 · Dallas's citations from the brush truck cameras still stand as the city reported them. - 2026-09-29 · The citations Dallas issued from its brush truck cameras stand as the city reported them. - 2026-10-02 · Dallas's citations from the brush truck cameras still stand as the city reported them. One television account bars automated readers. - 2026-10-05 · The city's own briefing on the brush truck cameras still reads as presented, and the first citations stand as reported. The fullest account of them sits on a site that bars automated readers. - 2026-10-08 · Dallas's own briefing on the brush truck cameras still reads as presented, with a person reviewing before any citation goes out. The fullest published account sits on a site that bars automated readers. - 2026-10-11 · The city's own briefing still describes a person reviewing every camera flag before a citation. The station's account stays out of reach. - 2026-10-12 · Dallas still has a person review every camera flag before a citation goes out. - 2026-10-15 · Dallas still has a person review every camera flag before a citation goes out. The station's investigation is unconfirmed, since its site bars automated readers. - 2026-10-17 · The city's own briefing to its finance committee still says a person reviews every camera flag before a citation goes out. The Fox 4 account still reads as cited. The NBC 5 investigation is unconfirmed, since its site bars automated readers. - 2026-10-18 · The city's finance committee briefing and the Fox 4 account still read as cited. The NBC 5 investigation is unconfirmed, since its site bars automated readers. - 2026-10-21 · At the October 19th committee briefing the city reported 50 cameras, 2,928 courtesy notices and 101 formal enforcement actions since mid April. It said it will soften the notice's wording, and a council member called for an audit of the images. - 2026-10-24 · Dallas still issues code citations from the AI cameras on its brush trucks, as the city's own records describe. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The city's own briefing states the scale of the deployment. > Implement 100 AI-enabled cameras on Sanitation brush trucks Source (primary_official): https://dallascityhall.com/government/citymanager/Documents/Council%20Materials/A.%20Sanitation%20and%20Code.pdf ### The briefing states what the system is not, and names a human step. > NOT automated ticketing Source (primary_official): https://dallascityhall.com/government/citymanager/Documents/Council%20Materials/A.%20Sanitation%20and%20Code.pdf ### The briefing states the human step in as many words. > There is a human in the loop for all actions Source (primary_official): https://dallascityhall.com/government/citymanager/Documents/Council%20Materials/A.%20Sanitation%20and%20Code.pdf ### The briefing states the annual cost and what it covers. > The contract cost is $852,000 per year, which includes 100 cameras and all associated technology, installation, data services, maintenance, warranty, and replacement support. Source (primary_official): https://dallascityhall.com/government/citymanager/Documents/Council%20Materials/A.%20Sanitation%20and%20Code.pdf ### The station reports the memo's citation count in the city manager's own words. > In a memo written last week addressing questions about the cameras, City Manager Kimberly Bizor Tolbert wrote that "57 citations have been issued at 34 properties for non-compliance," so far. Source (journalism): https://www.nbcdfw.com/investigations/dallas-issues-first-citations-tied-to-ai-code-enforcement-cameras/4078749/ ### The station reports where the citations landed, citing the same memo. > The city manager's memo said 39 of those citations, or 68%, were issued to people in City Council Districts 4, 8 and 7 in Southern Dallas. Source (journalism): https://www.nbcdfw.com/investigations/dallas-issues-first-citations-tied-to-ai-code-enforcement-cameras/4078749/ ### The station reports the city manager's position on what a courtesy notice is. > And in the city manager's recent memo, Tolbert wrote, "A courtesy notice is not a warning or a violation." Source (journalism): https://www.nbcdfw.com/investigations/dallas-issues-first-citations-tied-to-ai-code-enforcement-cameras/4078749/ ### The station reports what the notice itself asks the owner to do. > It also said, "Please correct the violations promptly to avoid further enforcement action." Source (journalism): https://www.nbcdfw.com/investigations/dallas-issues-first-citations-tied-to-ai-code-enforcement-cameras/4078749/ ### The assistant director of Code Compliance answers the question directly. > After NBC 5 Investigates reminded Reed the notice asks the homeowner to do something to avoid enforcement and asked if that isn't a warning, Reed replied: "I think at this point, you're mincing words. I would say you could call that a warning. It is a notification to the property that there is a code violation." Source (journalism): https://www.nbcdfw.com/investigations/dallas-issues-first-citations-tied-to-ai-code-enforcement-cameras/4078749/ ### The station gives the memo's date and the scanning figures. > According to the memo, the cameras have scanned 10,000 properties and have resulted in 3,700 violations, resulting in notices from the city. Source (journalism): https://www.fox4news.com/news/ai-powered-cameras-dallas-trash-trucks-hand-out-almost-4000-notices-57-citations ### The station dates the memo. > A September 8 memo from the City of Dallas detailed the findings and costs of AI-powered cameras that the city has been using on its trash trucks since early 2026. Source (journalism): https://www.fox4news.com/news/ai-powered-cameras-dallas-trash-trucks-hand-out-almost-4000-notices-57-citations ### The station names the date of the coming briefing. > A briefing on the cameras from Dallas City Manager Kim Tolbert will take place on October 19. Source (journalism): https://www.fox4news.com/news/ai-powered-cameras-dallas-trash-trucks-hand-out-almost-4000-notices-57-citations ### The station reports when the cameras reached full operation. > The cameras just went fully operational over the summer. Source (journalism): https://www.nbcdfw.com/investigations/dallas-issues-first-citations-tied-to-ai-code-enforcement-cameras/4078749/ ### The station reports the words the courtesy notice carries near its top. > Near the top of the notice, in bold letters, it said "violations identified." Source (journalism): https://www.nbcdfw.com/investigations/dallas-issues-first-citations-tied-to-ai-code-enforcement-cameras/4078749/ ### The Dallas Morning News reports council members learned of the notice changes at a committee meeting on Monday, October 19th. > The changes are intended to make notices easier to understand, council members learned during a committee meeting Monday. Source (journalism): https://www.govtech.com/artificial-intelligence/dallas-revises-resident-notices-from-trash-truck-ai-cameras ### The city has used 50 AI powered cameras on bulky sanitation trucks since mid April, the Dallas Morning News reports. > The city started using 50 AI-powered cameras mounted on bulky sanitation trucks in mid-April to scan for possible property and right-of-way concerns, including overgrown lawns, debris, unsafe structures, graffiti and sidewalk issues. Source (journalism): https://www.govtech.com/artificial-intelligence/dallas-revises-resident-notices-from-trash-truck-ai-cameras ### Staff have reviewed 5,318 observations, sent 2,928 courtesy notices and conducted 473 field inspections. > Staff have reviewed 5,318 observations, sent 2,928 courtesy notices and conducted 473 field inspections. Source (journalism): https://www.govtech.com/artificial-intelligence/dallas-revises-resident-notices-from-trash-truck-ai-cameras ### The department also reported 374 voluntary corrections and 101 formal enforcement actions. > The department also reported 374 voluntary corrections and 101 formal enforcement actions. Source (journalism): https://www.govtech.com/artificial-intelligence/dallas-revises-resident-notices-from-trash-truck-ai-cameras ### The city says the figures are not a step by step count from camera detection to enforcement. > The numbers reflect different parts of the program, not a step-by-step count of cases moving from camera detection to enforcement. Source (journalism): https://www.govtech.com/artificial-intelligence/dallas-revises-resident-notices-from-trash-truck-ai-cameras ### The code department plans to soften the wording of its courtesy notices. > The code department plans to soften the language it uses in its courtesy notices, so the notice feels less like an enforcement warning. Source (journalism): https://www.govtech.com/artificial-intelligence/dallas-revises-resident-notices-from-trash-truck-ai-cameras ### A flagged image is not automatically treated as a violation, and licensed code officers decide on a response. > A flagged image is not automatically treated as a violation. Licensed code officers compare the image with the software’s finding and decide whether the issue warrants a response. Source (journalism): https://www.govtech.com/artificial-intelligence/dallas-revises-resident-notices-from-trash-truck-ai-cameras ### Faces and license plates are blurred and images are kept for 12 months. > Faces and license plates are blurred, and images are retained for 12 months under city records-retention requirements. Source (journalism): https://www.govtech.com/artificial-intelligence/dallas-revises-resident-notices-from-trash-truck-ai-cameras ### A council member called for an audit of images to check the privacy protections. > A council member called for an audit of images to verify that privacy protections are working. Source (journalism): https://www.govtech.com/artificial-intelligence/dallas-revises-resident-notices-from-trash-truck-ai-cameras --- # Leander stops paying for its plate reader contract and says the police department is no longer using the cameras or the data The Leander City Council directed the city to discontinue funding its contract with the automated license plate recognition vendor Flock at its September 3rd, 2026 meeting. The city posted a notice saying that as of September 4th, 2026 the police department is no longer using Flock cameras or Flock data. The city's own account gives the reason as community concerns and says the system had been started to enhance public safety. What the notice does not say is what happens to the images already collected or whether the hardware comes down. - Topic: surveillance-and-policing - Decided by: City of Leander (city) - Where: Williamson - Statistical areas: - Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://www.leandertx.gov/m/newsflash - Last checked: 2026-10-03 ## Dates - 2026-09-03 · decided: Council meeting at which the direction to discontinue funding was given - 2026-09-04 · effective: Date the city gives for the police department no longer using the cameras or the data ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-21 · Admitted on the city's own notice, which gives both the direction and the date the department stopped. What happens to the images already collected is not stated anywhere the city has published. - 2026-09-24 · The city's notice still says the department stopped using the cameras and the city stopped paying for them. What becomes of images already collected is still unstated. - 2026-09-27 · The city's notice has moved off the front of its news page and still reads the same at its own address. What becomes of images already collected is still unstated. - 2026-09-30 · The city's notice still says it stopped paying for the plate reader contract and the police no longer use the cameras. What happens to images already collected is still not stated. - 2026-10-03 · Leander's decision to stop paying for its plate reader contract still stands as the city announced it. - 2026-10-06 · Leander's decision to stop paying for its plate reader contract is unconfirmed this time. The city's notice turned away every reader that asked for it. - 2026-10-07 · Leander's notice that it stopped paying for plate readers is still unconfirmed. The city's site refuses every reader. - 2026-10-08 · Leander's notice that it stopped paying for plate readers remains unconfirmed. The city's site still refuses every reader. - 2026-10-09 · Leander's notice that it stopped paying for plate readers remains unconfirmed. The city's site still refuses every reader. - 2026-10-10 · Leander's notice that it stopped paying for plate readers stays unconfirmed, because the city's site refuses every reader. - 2026-10-24 · Leander's end to its plate reader contract is unconfirmed today, since the city's notice refused the request. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The city states the decision and the date the department stopped. > The City of Leander will discontinue funding its contract with Flock, following the directive by the Leander City Council during its September 3, 2026 meeting. As of September 4, 2026, the Leander Police Department is no longer using Flock cameras or Flock data. Source (primary_official): https://www.leandertx.gov/m/newsflash/Home/Detail/1347 ### The city gives its reason. > The City originally initiated an Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) system in an effort to enhance public safety for our citizens and business community. In response to community concerns, the City Council decided to discontinue Flock services. While we will no longer have Flock as a resource, our vigilance and commitment to public safety remains unwavering. Source (primary_official): https://www.leandertx.gov/m/newsflash/Home/Detail/1347 --- # A Houston oil producer buys into an AI vendor and commits its Ward County operations to the vendor's system Battalion Oil Corporation announced on September 8th, 2026 an equity investment in Collide Industrial Technologies and a Strategic Partner designation. Under an executed subscription agreement the producer will deploy the vendor's operations system across its upstream operations. The company says the deployment begins by unifying more than 100 terabytes of well files, land records, contracts and production history into one queryable model. The company says the work environment is expected to reach its production engineers at approximately day 90. The company names its Monument Draw cube development program in Ward County as the first fit. Every figure and every result in the announcement is the company's own and none of it has been through a regulator. The release names no client and no measured figure behind its claim of proven results. - Topic: research-and-science - Decided by: Battalion Oil Corporation (company) - Where: Ward, Harris - Statistical areas: - Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2026/09/08/3358243/18320/en/battalion-oil-corporation-announces-strategic-investment-in-collide-the-ai-native-operations-system-for-oil-and-gas.html - Last checked: 2026-10-09 ## Dates - 2026-09-08 · filed: Date on the company's own announcement ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-21 · Admitted on the company's own announcement. Nothing here has been through a regulator and the producer has an equity stake in the vendor whose system it is buying. Every claim about the system's results is a claim by a party with an interest in it. Nothing reaches an engineer on the company's own timeline until about day 90. - 2026-09-24 · The producer's announcement still commits its Ward County operations to a vendor it holds a stake in. Every claim about results is still the company's own. - 2026-09-27 · The producer's announcement of its stake in the vendor and the commitment of its Ward County operations still reads as published. - 2026-09-30 · The producer's announcement still reads as published, with its stake in the vendor and its Ward County operations committed to the vendor's system. - 2026-10-03 · The producer's announcement still commits its Ward County operations to the vendor it holds a stake in. Every result it claims is still its own. - 2026-10-06 · The Houston producer's stake in the AI vendor and its Ward County commitment still read as the company announced them. - 2026-10-09 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-16 · Battalion's stake in Collide and its plan to put Riggs before its Ward County engineers were last confirmed on October 6th. They could not be rechecked today, because the release's only publisher now refuses every reader. - 2026-10-24 · The Houston producer's stake in an AI vendor and its Ward County commitment are unconfirmed today, since the release refused the request. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The company states the investment and the designation. > Battalion Oil Corporation (NYSE American: BATL, “Battalion” or the “Company”) today announced an equity investment in Collide Industrial Technologies Inc. (“Collide”) and “Strategic Partner” designation. Source (primary_corporate): https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2026/09/08/3358243/18320/en/battalion-oil-corporation-announces-strategic-investment-in-collide-the-ai-native-operations-system-for-oil-and-gas.html ### The company states what the deployment starts with and where it lands. > Riggs, Collide’s AI work environment, is expected to reach Battalion's production engineers at approximately day 90. Battalion sees Riggs as a natural fit for its Monument Draw cube development program in Ward County, Texas and in the continued efforts to consolidate accretive assets in and out of the basin. Source (primary_corporate): https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2026/09/08/3358243/18320/en/battalion-oil-corporation-announces-strategic-investment-in-collide-the-ai-native-operations-system-for-oil-and-gas.html ### The company states the scale of the data the system is pointed at. > The deployment begins by unifying more than 100 terabytes of well files, land records, contracts and production history into a single queryable model of the business. Source (primary_corporate): https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2026/09/08/3358243/18320/en/battalion-oil-corporation-announces-strategic-investment-in-collide-the-ai-native-operations-system-for-oil-and-gas.html ### The company's claim of results names no client and no figure. > Proven client results: Demonstrated results across a range of upstream processes that once took operators hours or days to complete are now completed in minutes, with the client keeping full review and control Source (primary_corporate): https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2026/09/08/3358243/18320/en/battalion-oil-corporation-announces-strategic-investment-in-collide-the-ai-native-operations-system-for-oil-and-gas.html --- # Governor directs the environmental agency to issue no data center permits until the grid audit is done On September 21st, 2026 the Governor directed the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to suspend action on all permits sought by data center projects. In the Governor's own words the agency will issue no permits sought by data center projects until they complete the grid and water board audits. The letter goes wider than one agency. It states that no other state agency is to move forward with regulatory approvals related to data centers until that information is acquired. The agency must report to the Office of the Governor on its compliance by October 19th, 2026. - Topic: land-water-and-permitting - Decided by: Office of the Texas Governor (governor) - Where: Statewide - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://www.texastribune.org/2026/09/21/texas-data-center-moratorium-water-energy/ - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-09-21 · ordered: Directive issued to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality - 2026-10-19 · administrative deadline: Agency must report to the Office of the Governor on its compliance with the directive ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-23 · Admitted on the directive the Governor's office published on September 21st. The environmental agency has published nothing of its own about how it will apply the halt to a permit already filed. - 2026-09-23 · The Governor's own site refuses the automated fetcher in its exclusion file, so the directive is cited through the Texas Tribune, CBS News Texas and Troutman Pepper Locke instead. Three conditions the release set out and its closing line on incentives are not carried, since none of those three reproduces them. - 2026-09-26 · The Governor's directive still tells the environmental agency to issue no data center permits until the audit is done. - 2026-09-29 · TCEQ is still told to issue no data center permits until the grid audit is complete. - 2026-10-02 · TCEQ is still under orders to issue no data center permits until the grid audit is done. - 2026-10-05 · The Governor's directive that TCEQ issue no data center permits until the grid audit is done still stands. - 2026-10-08 · The Governor's directive holding TCEQ data center permits until the grid audit is finished is still in force. - 2026-10-11 · The Governor's hold on TCEQ data center permits until the grid audit is done remains in force. - 2026-10-12 · The Governor's hold on data center permits at the environmental agency stays in force until the grid audit is done. - 2026-10-15 · The Governor's hold on data center permits at the environmental agency stays in force. - 2026-10-16 · The three published accounts of the September 21st directive still read as they did. Each says the environmental agency is to issue no permits sought by data center projects. - 2026-10-17 · The three published accounts of the Governor's directive still say the environmental agency is to issue no permits sought by data center projects until the audits are done. - 2026-10-18 · The Governor's directive still tells the environmental agency to issue no data center permits until the audits finish. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · The Governor's direction to the environmental agency to issue no data center permits until the grid audit is done still stands. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The Governor directed the environmental agency to suspend action on all permits sought by data center projects until the grid operator finishes its audit. > Governor Greg Abbott directed the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to suspend action on all permits sought by data center projects until the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) completes its ongoing audit Source (journalism): https://www.troutman.com/insights/governor-abbott-directs-tceq-to-halt-all-data-center-permits-pending-ercot-twdb-audits/ ### The directive reaches past the one agency it is addressed to. > no other state agency shall move forward with regulatory approvals related to data centers until this information is acquired Source (journalism): https://www.texastribune.org/2026/09/21/texas-data-center-moratorium-water-energy/ ### In the Governor's own words the halt is scoped to who is asking for the permit. > Data centers must pay their own way, protect our grid and water, and complete the ERCOT and TWDB audits. Until they do, TCEQ will issue no permits sought by data center projects. Source (journalism): https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/texas-gov-greg-abbott-pause-new-data-center-permits-sept-21-2026/ ### The agency is told to align its permitting decisions with what the audits find. > must align its permitting decisions with forthcoming audit results from ERCOT and the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) Source (journalism): https://www.troutman.com/insights/governor-abbott-directs-tceq-to-halt-all-data-center-permits-pending-ercot-twdb-audits/ ### The agency must report on its compliance by a fixed date. > TCEQ must report to the Office of the Governor on its compliance with the directive by Monday, October 19, 2026. Source (journalism): https://www.troutman.com/insights/governor-abbott-directs-tceq-to-halt-all-data-center-permits-pending-ercot-twdb-audits/ --- # FAA takes comment until October 11th on letting Zipline fly drone deliveries around the clock over five Texas metros The Federal Aviation Administration has published a draft environmental assessment of Zipline International's request to begin commercial drone package delivery in Amarillo, Austin, El Paso, Houston and San Antonio. Approving the change to the company's air carrier operating approvals is the federal action under review. The draft assesses up to 220 chargers, 4,400 pickup dropboxes and 220,000 deliveries a day across the five areas, flown around the clock at about 330 feet above the ground. Routes are generated by software. At each stop a pod lowers on a line and evaluates the drop spot automatically. When the pod can't identify the target and judge the spot itself, an image is sent to an operator. The draft finds no significant noise impact. The comment period closed on October 11th, 2026. Every substantive comment is to be answered in the final assessment. The agency's review page listed no final assessment for this draft when read on October 15th, 2026. - Topic: defense-and-federal - Decided by: Federal Aviation Administration (federal) - Where: Armstrong, Atascosa, Austin, Bandera, Bastrop, Bexar, Blanco, Brazoria, Brazos, Burleson, Burnet, Caldwell, Carson, Chambers, Colorado, Comal, El Paso, Fort Bend, Galveston, Grimes, Guadalupe, Harris, Hays, Kendall, Kerr, Liberty, Matagorda, Medina, Montgomery, Potter, Randall, Robertson, San Jacinto, Travis, Waller, Walker, Washington, Wharton, Williamson, Wilson - Statistical areas: - Amarillo, TX - Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX - Bay City, TX - Brenham, TX - College Station-Bryan, TX - El Campo, TX - El Paso, TX - Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX - Huntsville, TX - Kerrville, TX - San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX - Status: pending - Public access: Comment window open - Comment closes: 2026-10-11 - Take part: https://www.faa.gov/uas/advanced_operations/nepa_and_drones - Last checked: 2026-10-23 ## Dates - 2026-09-11 · comment opens: Draft environmental assessment made available for public review - 2026-10-11 · comment closes: Public comment period on the draft closes ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-24 · Admitted on the agency's own draft and its own review page, with the comment window open. The draft was prepared by the applicant under the agency's supervision, and the operating approvals it assesses have not been granted. - 2026-09-27 · The agency's draft assessment and review page still stand as published. The comment window is still open until October 11th. - 2026-09-30 · The agency's review page and the draft assessment still read as published, and the comment window is still open until October 11th. - 2026-10-03 · The comment window is still open, closing October 11th. The agency's review page and the draft assessment still read as published. - 2026-10-04 · The comment window is still open and closes October 11th. The agency's review page did not answer, so whether the draft assessment still reads as published is unconfirmed this time. - 2026-10-05 · The comment window is still open and closes October 11th. The agency's review page refused the request again, so whether the draft assessment still reads as published is unconfirmed. - 2026-10-06 · The comment window on Zipline's Texas metros assessment is still open and closes October 11th. The agency's review page and the draft assessment both read as published. - 2026-10-07 · The comment window on Zipline's Texas metros assessment is still open and closes October 11th. The agency's review page and the draft assessment both read as published. - 2026-10-08 · The comment window on Zipline's Texas metros assessment is set to close October 11th. The agency's pages refused the request today, so whether anything has moved since yesterday's reading is unconfirmed. - 2026-10-09 · Comment on Zipline's Texas metros assessment is set to close October 11th. The agency's pages refused the request again, so nothing since is confirmed. - 2026-10-10 · The agency's review page and the draft assessment both still read as published, and comment on Zipline's Texas metros assessment closes tomorrow, October 11th. - 2026-10-15 · The comment window on Zipline's Texas metros assessment closed on October 11th, as the agency's review page now says. The draft assessment is still posted there, and no final assessment or decision for it appears on the page. - 2026-10-20 · The agency's review page has dropped its call for comments and now says the period on Zipline's Texas metros draft closed on October 11th. The draft and its noise study are still posted, and no final assessment or finding has been published. - 2026-10-23 · The agency's drone review page still says comment on Zipline's Texas metros draft closed on October 11th. The draft and its noise study are still posted, and no final assessment or finding has appeared. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### Zipline is asking the FAA for approval to begin commercial delivery in five Texas metro areas. > Zipline International Inc. (Zipline) is seeking FAA approval to begin commercial package delivery operations in five Texas metropolitan areas: Amarillo, Austin, El Paso, Houston, and San Antonio. Source (primary_official): https://www.faa.gov/uas/advanced_operations/nepa_and_drones ### The agency's page says the comment period on the draft closed on October 11th, 2026, and keeps the draft posted to read. > The comment period closed on October 11, 2026, but a copy of the Draft EA is available here to view or download Source (primary_official): https://www.faa.gov/uas/advanced_operations/nepa_and_drones ### The draft was opened for a thirty day review. > The Draft EA will be available for a 30-day public review beginning on Friday, September 11, 2026. Source (primary_official): https://www.faa.gov/uas/advanced_operations/nepa_and_drones/20260911_Zipline_Texas_Metros_Draft_EA_CLEAN_ADA_Signed.pdf ### Comments go to the agency by email. > Comments on the Draft EA may be submitted electronically Source (primary_official): https://www.faa.gov/uas/advanced_operations/nepa_and_drones/20260911_Zipline_Texas_Metros_Draft_EA_CLEAN_ADA_Signed.pdf ### Every substantive comment is to be answered in the final assessment. > All substantive comments received will be responded to in the final EA. Source (primary_official): https://www.faa.gov/uas/advanced_operations/nepa_and_drones/20260911_Zipline_Texas_Metros_Draft_EA_CLEAN_ADA_Signed.pdf ### The draft's table gives the maximum chargers, dropboxes, deliveries and transits per day in each metro and in total. > Houston 9,932 65 1,300 65,000 195,000 San Antonio 3,326 65 1,300 65,000 195,000 Austin 2,498 30 600 30,000 90,000 Amarillo 1,199 30 600 30,000 90,000 El Paso 629 30 600 30,000 90,000 Total 17,584 220 4,400 220,000 660,000 Source (primary_official): https://www.faa.gov/uas/advanced_operations/nepa_and_drones/20260911_Zipline_Texas_Metros_Draft_EA_CLEAN_ADA_Signed.pdf ### Operations would run all day, every day. > Zipline is proposing to conduct operations 24 hours a day, 7 days per week, including holidays Source (primary_official): https://www.faa.gov/uas/advanced_operations/nepa_and_drones/20260911_Zipline_Texas_Metros_Draft_EA_CLEAN_ADA_Signed.pdf ### The aircraft cruises at 330 feet above ground level. > Zipline UAs would generally be operated at an altitude of 330 feet above ground level (AGL) while en route to and from Charger, Dropbox, and delivery locations. Source (primary_official): https://www.faa.gov/uas/advanced_operations/nepa_and_drones/20260911_Zipline_Texas_Metros_Draft_EA_CLEAN_ADA_Signed.pdf ### The aircraft is described as highly automated. > The Zipline UA is a highly automated, electrically powered vertical takeoff and landing aircraft capable of hover and forward flight Source (primary_official): https://www.faa.gov/uas/advanced_operations/nepa_and_drones/20260911_Zipline_Texas_Metros_Draft_EA_CLEAN_ADA_Signed.pdf ### Routes are generated by software. > Routes are generated by software that takes into consideration factors including weather risk, wind direction, and population density. Source (primary_official): https://www.faa.gov/uas/advanced_operations/nepa_and_drones/20260911_Zipline_Texas_Metros_Draft_EA_CLEAN_ADA_Signed.pdf ### The pod identifies the delivery target itself, and an image goes to an operator when it can't. > If the pod is unable to automatically identify the delivery target and evaluate its suitability, an image is sent to an operator for real-time evaluation. Source (primary_official): https://www.faa.gov/uas/advanced_operations/nepa_and_drones/20260911_Zipline_Texas_Metros_Draft_EA_CLEAN_ADA_Signed.pdf ### The draft finds delivery noise does not exceed the threshold it uses. > At a rate of 400 average daily deliveries per day, the maximum noise exposure would be no more than DNL 58.1 dB at any distance from a delivery point and would not exceed DNL 59.7 dB at any point. Source (primary_official): https://www.faa.gov/uas/advanced_operations/nepa_and_drones/20260911_Zipline_Texas_Metros_Draft_EA_CLEAN_ADA_Signed.pdf ### The draft names the counties the five metro areas reach into. > These metro areas include portions of Armstrong, Atacosta, Austin, Bandera, Bastrop, Bexar, Blanco, Brazoria, Brazos, Burleson, Burnet, Caldwell, Carson, Chambers, Colorado, Comal, El Paso, Fort Bend, Galveston, Grimes, Guadalupe, Harris, Hays, Kendall, Kerr, Liberty, Matagorda, Medina, Montgomery, Potter, Randall, Roberston, San Jacinto, Travis, Waller, Walker, Washington, Wharton, Williamson, and Wilson Counties. Source (primary_official): https://www.faa.gov/uas/advanced_operations/nepa_and_drones/20260911_Zipline_Texas_Metros_Draft_EA_CLEAN_ADA_Signed.pdf ### The draft concludes the operations would not have a significant noise impact. > Based on the noise analysis, and the above project restrictions, the proposed action would not have a significant noise impact. Source (primary_official): https://www.faa.gov/uas/advanced_operations/nepa_and_drones/20260911_Zipline_Texas_Metros_Draft_EA_CLEAN_ADA_Signed.pdf ### Zipline is seeking to amend its air carrier operations specifications and other FAA approvals to begin delivery in the Texas metros. > Zipline is seeking to amend its air carrier Operation Specifications (OpSpecs) and other FAA approvals necessary to begin commercial drone package delivery operations in multiple Texas metro areas. Source (primary_official): https://www.faa.gov/uas/advanced_operations/nepa_and_drones/20260911_Zipline_Texas_Metros_Draft_EA_CLEAN_ADA_Signed.pdf ### At a delivery the pod is winched down to the ground at the delivery point. > Droid is winched down to the ground at the delivery point Source (primary_official): https://www.faa.gov/uas/advanced_operations/nepa_and_drones/20260911_Zipline_Texas_Metros_Draft_EA_CLEAN_ADA_Signed.pdf ### The pod automatically controls its position and evaluates the delivery location. > The pod is released from the Zipline UA and lowered to the ground via the winch line. During pod descent, the pod automatically controls its position laterally and evaluates the delivery location. If the delivery location is clear, the pod would continue to descend and deliver the payload at the delivery target. Source (primary_official): https://www.faa.gov/uas/advanced_operations/nepa_and_drones/20260911_Zipline_Texas_Metros_Draft_EA_CLEAN_ADA_Signed.pdf --- # PUCT adopts the SB 6 large load interconnection rule, requires $50,000 per megawatt of security and drops the interconnection fee The Public Utility Commission of Texas adopted new 16 TAC §25.194, the large load interconnection standards Senate Bill 6 required. Before a large load can be included in an ERCOT interconnection study, the customer must sign an intermediate agreement, make certain disclosures and post financial security of $50,000 per megawatt. The rule reaches new interconnections of 75 megawatts or more. The commission removed the interconnection fee its proposal carried, and says the financial security that remains protects against stranded infrastructure costs rather than being a fee. The order was filed on September 18th, 2026 and the Texas Register receipt gives an effective date of October 8th, 2026. - Topic: power-and-the-grid - Decided by: Public Utility Commission of Texas (state-agency) - Where: Statewide - Status: decided - Public access: Closed - Take part: https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=58481&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Descending - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-09-18 · ordered: Order adopting new 16 TAC §25.194 filed - 2026-10-08 · effective: Effective date given on the Texas Register acknowledgement ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-24 · Admitted on the commission's own adoption order and the Texas Register receipt. The rule is adopted and takes effect on the date that receipt gives. - 2026-09-27 · The commission's adoption order still reads as filed, and the rule stands as adopted. - 2026-09-30 · The commission's order adopting the large load interconnection rule still reads as filed. - 2026-10-01 · The commission's adopted large load interconnection rule still reads as the order filed it, security requirement and dropped interconnection fee included. - 2026-10-02 · The adopted large load rule still carries the security requirement and the dropped fee as the commission's order filed them. - 2026-10-03 · The commission's adopted large load interconnection rule still stands as ordered, security requirement included. - 2026-10-04 · The commission's large load rule still stands as adopted, with the security requirement it set for new loads unchanged. - 2026-10-05 · The commission's large load interconnection rule still stands as adopted, with its security requirement per megawatt. - 2026-10-06 · The commission's large load interconnection rule still stands as adopted, its security requirement unchanged. - 2026-10-07 · The commission's large load interconnection rule stands as adopted, with its security requirement per megawatt unchanged. - 2026-10-08 · The large load interconnection rule stands as the commission adopted it. Its security requirement is unchanged. - 2026-10-11 · The large load interconnection rule stands as adopted, with its security requirement unchanged. - 2026-10-15 · The large load interconnection rule stands as adopted, its security requirement unchanged. - 2026-10-18 · The large load interconnection rule stands as adopted. Its security requirement reads as written. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · The commission's large load interconnection rule still stands as adopted, security requirement included. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The filing index lists the adoption order. > ORDER ADOPTING NEW 16 TAC §25.194 Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=58481&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Descending ### The rule implements the statute SB 6 enacted. > The new rule implements Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA) §37.0561 as enacted by Senate Bill (SB) 6 during the Texas 89th Regular Legislative Session. Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58481_218_1684654.PDF ### Before an interconnection study, a large load must sign an intermediate agreement, disclose and post security. > The new rule requires a large load customer, before the large load customer can be included in an ERCOT interconnection study, to execute an intermediate agreement, provide certain disclosures, and post financial security in the amount $50,000 per megawatt (MW). Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58481_218_1684654.PDF ### The rule applies to new interconnections at or above 75 megawatts. > (1) a new interconnection that is equal to or exceeds 75 megawatts (MW) Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58481_218_1684654.PDF ### The commission removed the interconnection fee. > EDF's recommendation with respect to the interconnection fee is moot because the commission modifies the adopted rule to remove the interconnection fee. Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58481_218_1684654.PDF ### The commission says the security that remains is not a fee. > Financial security remains a requirement to protect against stranded infrastructure costs and is not a "fee." Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58481_218_1684654.PDF ### The Texas Register receipt gives the effective date. > Effective Date: 10/08/2026 Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58481_219_1684678.PDF ### The order was filed on September 18th, 2026. > Filed Date - 2026-09-18 01:19:42 PM Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/58481_218_1684654.PDF --- # Texas requires a state authorization to run driverless vehicles commercially, with no fee, no expiry and no crash history asked The Texas Department of Motor Vehicles now requires any company running automated vehicles commercially on Texas roads to hold an authorization, under Senate Bill 2807. The requirement became enforceable on May 28th, 2026, after the department's rules took effect on February 27th, 2026. An applicant acknowledges a written statement about the vehicle and certifies that it gave the Department of Public Safety a plan for how first responders should deal with the vehicle. There is no fee, and an authorization does not expire until the department revokes it. The department treats an operation as endangering the public when it has resulted, or is likely to result, in serious bodily injury. Below that standard it says administrative enforcement action is unlikely. The City of Dallas asked the department to require crash history and to make approved operators public. The department answered that the statute does not allow it to require crash history. - Topic: state-policy - Decided by: Texas Department of Motor Vehicles (state-agency) - Where: Statewide - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://txmccs.txdmv.gov/truckstop - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-02-27 · effective: The department's automated vehicle rules take effect - 2026-05-28 · effective: The authorization requirement becomes enforceable ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-26 · Admitted to the record. The authorization requirement has been enforceable since May 28th, and Kodiak and Aurora have each announced plans for driverless freight on the lane between Dallas and Houston. - 2026-09-29 · TxDMV's authorization for commercial driverless operation still carries no fee and no expiry, and the adopted rule still says the statute does not let the department require crash history. - 2026-10-02 · TxDMV's driverless authorization still carries no fee and no expiry, and the department still says the statute won't let it ask for crash history. - 2026-10-05 · Texas still requires a state authorization to run driverless vehicles commercially. - 2026-10-08 · A state authorization is still required to run driverless vehicles commercially in Texas. - 2026-10-11 · Commercial driverless operation in Texas still requires the state authorization. - 2026-10-15 · A company still needs the state authorization to run driverless vehicles commercially in Texas. - 2026-10-18 · Running driverless vehicles commercially in Texas still takes the state authorization, on the same terms. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · The state authorization for commercial driverless vehicles still asks for no fee, carries no expiry and asks for no crash history. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### Every company operating automated vehicles commercially must hold an active authorization from May 28th, 2026. > All companies operating automated vehicles commercially on or after May 28, 2026, are required to maintain an active authorization with TxDMV. Source (primary_official): https://www.txdmv.gov/AVprogram ### The latest of the implementing rules took effect on February 27th, 2026. > The department and DPS both proposed and adopted administrative rules related to the new programs, the latest of which become effective on February 27, 2026. Source (primary_official): https://www.txdmv.gov/AVprogram ### An authorization carries no fee and does not expire. > No fees are required for an authorization to operate automated vehicles. Authorizations do not expire and are valid until revoked by the department. Source (primary_official): https://www.txdmv.gov/AVprogram ### The department defines endangering the public by serious bodily injury. > The operation of an automated motor vehicle is considered to endanger the public when the operation has resulted, or is likely to result, in serious bodily injury as defined by Section 1.07, Texas Penal Code. Source (primary_official): https://www.txdmv.gov/AVprogram ### The department says it is unlikely to act on a case below that standard. > The department is unlikely to take administrative enforcement action in cases that do not meet this standard as defined by Texas Penal Code, Section 1.07. Source (primary_official): https://www.txdmv.gov/AVprogram ### The applicant certifies that a first responder interaction plan went to the Department of Public Safety. > The applicant must also certify that the Texas Department of Public Safety has been provided a copy of the plan specifying how a person who provides firefighting, law enforcement, ambulance, medical, or other emergency services should interact with the automated motor vehicle during the provision of those services Source (primary_official): https://www.txdmv.gov/AVprogram ### The City of Dallas asked for crash history and public information about approved operators. > The City of Dallas encourages the department to require robust safety documentation, including crash history and proof of community stakeholder coordination, and to make information about approved operators publicly accessible. Source (primary_official): https://www.txdmv.gov/sites/default/files/body-files/Chap_220_Final_-_Adopt.pdf ### The department answered that the statute does not allow it to require crash history. > Transportation Code, § 545.453 and § 545.456 do not allow the department to require authorization holders to submit crash history or proof of community stakeholder coordination Source (primary_official): https://www.txdmv.gov/sites/default/files/body-files/Chap_220_Final_-_Adopt.pdf ### The Legislature created the authorization in Senate Bill 2807. > The 89th Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 2807 (89R) in 2025 creating a required authorization for the commercial operation of automated vehicles on Texas roads. Source (primary_official): https://www.txdmv.gov/AVprogram --- # Justice Department takes comment on a judgment barring a Frisco apartment manager from rent software fed by rivals' data The Justice Department filed a proposed final judgment on September 4th, 2026 against Pinnacle Property Management Services, an apartment manager headquartered in Frisco. Pinnacle licensed AI Revenue Management and YieldStar from RealPage, which is headquartered in Richardson. The judgment would bar Pinnacle from any outside revenue management product that uses other landlords' nonpublic data to recommend or set prices. It would also bar Pinnacle from sharing competitively sensitive information with competitors. The government may inspect Pinnacle's own pricing product down to its code and pseudocode. A monitor can be appointed if Pinnacle uses outside pricing software without a qualifying certification. The notice was published on September 18th, 2026 and invites public comment for 60 days. The judgment would expire five years after the court enters it. The case against RealPage and the other landlords goes on, and Pinnacle must cooperate in it. - Topic: defense-and-federal - Decided by: U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division (federal) - Where: Bexar, Brazoria, Collin, Dallas, Denton, Fort Bend, Harris, Montgomery, Rockwall, Tarrant, Travis, Williamson - Statistical areas: - Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX - Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX - Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX - San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX - Status: open - Public access: Comment window open - Comment closes: 2026-11-17 - Take part: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/09/18/2026-19100/united-states-of-america-et-al-v-realpage-inc-et-al-proposed-final-judgment-and-competitive-impact - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-09-04 · filed: Proposed final judgment against Pinnacle filed with the court - 2026-09-18 · comment opens: Notice published and public comment invited - 2026-11-17 · comment closes: Public comment period on the proposed judgment closes ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-27 · Admitted on the government's own notice, with the comment window open. The judgment is proposed and takes effect only when the court enters it. - 2026-09-30 · The judgment still reads as published in the register, and the comment window it opened is still running. - 2026-10-03 · The comment window on the proposed judgment is still open, closing November 17th. The proposal still reads as published. - 2026-10-06 · The Justice Department's comment window on the Frisco apartment manager judgment is still open, closing November 17th. - 2026-10-09 · The comment window is still open, closing November 17th. - 2026-10-12 · The comment window on the Frisco apartment manager's judgment is still open, closing November 17th. - 2026-10-15 · The Justice Department is still taking comment on the Frisco apartment manager's judgment. - 2026-10-18 · The Justice Department is still taking comment on the judgment against the Frisco apartment manager. - 2026-10-21 · The comment window is still open, closing November 17th. - 2026-10-24 · The Justice Department's proposed judgment on the Frisco rent software case is still open to comment, closing November 17th. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The Justice Department filed a proposed final judgment against Pinnacle on September 4th, 2026, barring it from rent software that relies on competitively sensitive data. > The proposed Final Judgment, filed on September 4, 2026, bars Pinnacle from licensing or using a revenue management software that relies on competitively sensitive data and prohibits Pinnacle from sharing competitively sensitive information with other landlords. Source (primary_official): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-09-18/pdf/2026-19100.pdf ### Pinnacle must also adopt an antitrust compliance policy and cooperate with the government in the case. > Pinnacle must also establish an antitrust compliance policy and cooperate with the United States in this litigation. Source (primary_official): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-09-18/pdf/2026-19100.pdf ### Public comment is invited for 60 days from the notice. > Public comment is invited within 60 days of the date of this notice. Source (primary_official): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-09-18/pdf/2026-19100.pdf ### Pinnacle is headquartered in Frisco and is one of the largest apartment managers in the country. > Pinnacle, headquartered in Frisco, Texas, is one of the largest apartment managers in the United States. Source (primary_official): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-09-18/pdf/2026-19100.pdf ### RealPage is headquartered in Richardson. > RealPage is a privately-owned company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware and is headquartered in Richardson, Texas. Source (primary_official): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-09-18/pdf/2026-19100.pdf ### Pinnacle licensed RealPage's AI Revenue Management and YieldStar to recommend rents. > Pinnacle licenses revenue management products called AI Revenue Management (‘‘AIRM’’) and YieldStar from RealPage. Source (primary_official): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-09-18/pdf/2026-19100.pdf ### Pinnacle reviews the software's floor plan recommendations daily and uses it to set rents down to single units. > It reviews AIRM and YieldStar floor plan price recommendations daily and uses these revenue management products to set scheduled floor plan rents and even unit-level prices. Source (primary_official): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-09-18/pdf/2026-19100.pdf ### The judgment bars Pinnacle from any third party revenue product that uses third party nonpublic data to recommend or set prices. > Pinnacle cannot license or use any third-party revenue management product that uses third-party nonpublic data to recommend or set prices; Source (primary_official): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-09-18/pdf/2026-19100.pdf ### The government may inspect Pinnacle's own revenue management product and review its code and pseudocode. > Pinnacle must allow the United States to inspect documents regarding its proprietary revenue management product and review the relevant code and pseudocode; Source (primary_official): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-09-18/pdf/2026-19100.pdf ### A monitor can be appointed if Pinnacle uses an outside revenue product without a qualifying certification covering runtime operation and model training. > If Pinnacle uses a third-party revenue management product, Pinnacle will be subject to the appointment of a monitor unless Pinnacle obtains a certification that meets certain requirements, including affirming, among other things, that the product complies with all required limitations regarding use of competitors’ competitively sensitive data in its runtime operation or model training; Source (primary_official): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-09-18/pdf/2026-19100.pdf ### Pinnacle must cooperate in the case against the other defendants. > Pinnacle must cooperate in this civil antitrust proceeding (United States et al. v. RealPage et al.) with respect to the claims against other defendants; Source (primary_official): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-09-18/pdf/2026-19100.pdf ### The judgment expires five years after entry unless extended, and may be ended after three years on notice. > Unless the Court grants an extension, this Final Judgment will expire five years from the date of its entry, except that after three years from the date of its entry, this Final Judgment may be terminated upon notice by the United States to the Court and Defendant that the continuation of this Final Judgment is no longer necessary or in the public interest. Source (primary_official): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-09-18/pdf/2026-19100.pdf ### The complaint says landlords' nonpublic lease data runs through a machine learning model whose learned parameters are used for every AIRM client. > This data is run through a machine learning model to generate learned parameters for supply and demand models that are then used for all AIRM clients across the country. Source (primary_official): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-09-18/pdf/2026-19100.pdf ### The complaint says RealPage retrains the models three to four times a year on updated nonpublic data. > RealPage generally retrains the models three to four times per year using updated nonpublic data. Source (primary_official): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-09-18/pdf/2026-19100.pdf ### The complaint says the software's default auto-accept settings approve a 3 percent daily change and an 8 percent weekly change. > By default, AIRM and YieldStar set auto-accept parameters of a 3% daily change and an 8% weekly change. Source (primary_official): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-09-18/pdf/2026-19100.pdf ### The complaint names RealPage-defined submarkets in Appendix A as markets where aligned pricing harmed or is likely to harm renters. > The RealPage-defined submarkets identified in Appendix A are relevant markets in which the agreements between RealPage and AIRM and YieldStar users to align pricing has harmed, or is likely to harm, competition and thus renters. Source (primary_official): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-09-18/pdf/2026-19100.pdf ### Comments go to the Antitrust Division's Technology and Digital Platforms Section. > Comments should be submitted in English and directed to Danielle Hauck, Acting Chief, Technology and Digital Platforms Section, Antitrust Division, Department of Justice, Source (primary_official): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-09-18/pdf/2026-19100.pdf --- # College Station City Council votes 4 to 2 to keep its Flock plate reader cameras on state and city roads The College Station City Council voted 4 to 2 on September 24th, 2026 to approve two agreements with Flock Group. One covers automatic license plate readers on state highway roads and the other covers cameras on other roads. Council members Mark Smith and Bob Yancy voted against. The cameras photograph the rear of passing vehicles day and night and sort each one by make, model and color. The city says no search can be run without reasonable suspicion. It says its police department decides which agencies can search the network and keeps every search indefinitely. An automated audit tool that went live in April is the city's named check on misuse. The city reports lower property crime since the cameras went up and says the drop correlates with them. It does not claim they caused it. - Topic: surveillance-and-policing - Decided by: College Station City Council (city) - Where: Brazos - Statistical areas: - College Station-Bryan, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://blog.cstx.gov/2026/09/24/live-from-city-hall-thursdays-city-council-meeting-sept-24/ - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-09-24 · decided: Council approves both Flock agreements ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-27 · Admitted on the city's own account of the meeting. The agreements are approved and the cameras stay in service. - 2026-09-30 · The city's account of the vote still stands, and the plate reader cameras stay in service on state and city roads. - 2026-10-03 · College Station's vote to keep its plate reader cameras still stands as the council took it. - 2026-10-06 · College Station's vote to keep its Flock plate reader contract still stands in the council's record. - 2026-10-09 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-12 · College Station's vote to keep its Flock cameras stands. No later council action has undone it. - 2026-10-15 · College Station's vote to keep its Flock cameras stands, with no later council action. - 2026-10-18 · College Station's vote to keep its Flock cameras stands. The council has not revisited it. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · College Station's vote to keep its Flock cameras on state and city roads still stands. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The council voted 4 to 2 to approve two Flock agreements, one for plate readers on state highways and one for cameras on other roads. > The Council voted 4-2 to approve an agreement not to exceed $158,000 with Flock Group for automatic license plate readers on Texas Department of Transportation roads and a $141,062 agreement for cameras on non-TxDOT roads. Source (primary_official): https://blog.cstx.gov/2026/09/24/live-from-city-hall-thursdays-city-council-meeting-sept-24/ ### Two council members voted against. > Councilmen Mark Smith and Bob Yancy voted against the motion. Source (primary_official): https://blog.cstx.gov/2026/09/24/live-from-city-hall-thursdays-city-council-meeting-sept-24/ ### The cameras photograph the rear of passing vehicles day and night. > The solar-powered, LTE-connected cameras capture photos of the rear of passing vehicles during the day and night. Source (primary_official): https://blog.cstx.gov/2026/09/24/live-from-city-hall-thursdays-city-council-meeting-sept-24/ ### The system sorts each vehicle by make, model and color and makes that data searchable. > The license plate image categorizes the vehicle’s make, model, and color, making the data searchable for criminal justice purposes. Source (primary_official): https://blog.cstx.gov/2026/09/24/live-from-city-hall-thursdays-city-council-meeting-sept-24/ ### The city says no search can be run without reasonable suspicion. > No search of the Flock system can be conducted without reasonable suspicion, the same level required for an officer to initiate a traffic stop. Source (primary_official): https://blog.cstx.gov/2026/09/24/live-from-city-hall-thursdays-city-council-meeting-sept-24/ ### The city says the police department controls which agencies can search its network and keeps every search indefinitely. > CSPD controls the agencies that can search its network, and all searches are retained indefinitely. Source (primary_official): https://blog.cstx.gov/2026/09/24/live-from-city-hall-thursdays-city-council-meeting-sept-24/ ### The city names an automated audit tool that went live April 14th as its check on misuse. > The Flock Audit Assistant tool went live April 14 and detects most of the misuse cases highlighted in recent months, making it CSPD’s only crime-fighting tool with an integrated auditing feature that looks for misuse. Source (primary_official): https://blog.cstx.gov/2026/09/24/live-from-city-hall-thursdays-city-council-meeting-sept-24/ ### The city says the drop in property crime correlates with the cameras. > This reduction in property crime offenses correlates with the introduction of Flock cameras. Source (primary_official): https://blog.cstx.gov/2026/09/24/live-from-city-hall-thursdays-city-council-meeting-sept-24/ --- # PUCT wildfire plan blueprint lists cameras suggested, not required The wildfire mitigation plan rule, 16 TAC §25.60, reaches every electric utility, municipally owned utility and electric cooperative that owns transmission or distribution lines in Texas. In Project 59053 commission staff filed a pro forma plan and guidelines that a utility may use and is not required to use. Its situational awareness section names cameras or other monitoring technology among the tools a plan describes. That section is marked suggested rather than required. Pano AI sells AI smoke detection cameras and names Xcel Energy, CenterPoint Energy, American Electric Power and Austin Energy as its Texas customers. It had asked staff to make a description of situational awareness tools a minimum requirement. A House State Affairs hearing reported on September 21st, 2026 heard that only eight of 160 utilities in fire-prone areas had complied with the plan law. The same hearing heard that Southwestern Public Service, which operates as Xcel Energy in the Panhandle, has deployed AI smoke detection cameras across its service territory. - Topic: power-and-the-grid - Decided by: Public Utility Commission of Texas (state-agency) - Where: Statewide - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=59053&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Descending - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2025-12-04 · effective: 16 TAC §25.60, Transmission and Distribution Wildfire Mitigation Plans, takes effect - 2026-04-10 · filed: Commission staff files its pro forma wildfire mitigation plan and guidelines in Project 59053 ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-28 · Admitted on the commission's own rule and staff's pro forma, with a hearing report on how many utilities have filed. - 2026-10-01 · The adopted wildfire plan rule and staff's pro forma still read as filed. The blueprint still lists cameras among measures a utility may use, with no requirement to deploy them. - 2026-10-04 · The wildfire plan blueprint still lists cameras as a suggestion rather than a requirement. - 2026-10-07 · The commission's wildfire plan blueprint still lists cameras as a suggestion and not a requirement. - 2026-10-10 · The commission's wildfire plan blueprint still lists cameras as a suggestion rather than a requirement. - 2026-10-15 · The commission's wildfire plan blueprint still lists cameras as suggested rather than required. - 2026-10-18 · The wildfire plan blueprint still lists cameras as a suggestion rather than a requirement. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · The commission's wildfire plan blueprint still lists cameras as suggested rather than required. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The wildfire mitigation plan rule reaches every utility, municipal utility and cooperative with transmission or distribution lines in Texas. > This section applies to each electric utility, municipally owned utility, and electric cooperative that owns a transmission or distribution facility in this state. Source (primary_official): https://ftp.puc.texas.gov/public/puct-info/agency/rulesnlaws/subrules/electric/25.60/25.60.pdf ### Using the pro forma is optional. > An entity required to file an application for approval of a wildfire mitigation plan may, but is not required to, use a pro forma plan. Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59053_20_1620229.PDF ### The pro forma's situational awareness section names cameras among the tools a plan describes. > Cameras or other monitoring technology Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59053_20_1620229.PDF ### The situational awareness section is marked suggested, for operational decisions during elevated risk. > to support operational decision-making during elevated risk conditions Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59053_20_1620229.PDF ### Pano AI asked staff to make a description of situational awareness tools a minimum requirement. > Pano recommends inclusion of an additional minimum requirement to provide a description of the use of situational awareness solutions. Source (primary_corporate): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59053_14_1570011.PDF ### Pano AI describes what its cameras do when paired with AI analytics. > When paired with native AI-based analytics, these enterprise-grade camera systems can automatically surface anomalies, rapidly identify and locate smoke or heat signatures, pinpoint the precise coordinates of ignitions, and support faster decision-making, operational response, and coordination by utilities and public safety agencies. Source (primary_corporate): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59053_14_1570011.PDF ### Pano AI names its Texas utility customers. > Our solution is deployed with more than 20 electric utility companies across the United States, including CenterPoint Energy, American Electric Power, Xcel Energy, and Austin Energy in Texas. Source (primary_corporate): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59053_14_1570011.PDF ### The commission says every utility must submit a plan and need not use the blueprint. > These tools do not replace utility-specific planning, and utilities are not required to use the pro-forma blueprint when preparing a WMP. Source (primary_official): https://ftp.puc.texas.gov/public/puct-info/agency/resources/pubs/news/2026/PUCT-Announces-Blueprint-Guidelines-for-Utility-Wildfire-Mitigation-Plans.pdf ### Lawmakers heard that few utilities in fire-prone areas had complied. > Only eight of 160 utility companies that operate in fire-prone areas of Texas have complied with a law that helps mitigate wildfires, lawmakers recently learned. Source (journalism): https://www.texastribune.org/2026/09/21/texas-wildfire-utilities-mitigation/ ### Southwestern Public Service told lawmakers it has deployed AI smoke detection cameras. > The company was heavily criticized in the wake of the fires and has since deployed 97 wildfire detection cameras across its service territory. The cameras use AI to detect smoke and provide that information in real-time to utility personnel, local fire responders and emergency managers. Source (journalism): https://www.texastribune.org/2026/09/21/texas-wildfire-utilities-mitigation/ ### The Smokehouse Creek fire started at an Xcel Energy pole. > It was the largest wildfire in Texas history, started when a decayed power pole owned by Xcel Energy snapped and landed in dry grass. Source (journalism): https://www.texastribune.org/2026/09/21/texas-wildfire-utilities-mitigation/ ### The commission's director gave lawmakers the count still preparing plans and the count not heard from. > Corona said another 135 have indicated to the PUC they are in the process of preparing their plan. This leaves 13 who have not communicated their plans to the PUC. Source (journalism): https://www.texastribune.org/2026/09/21/texas-wildfire-utilities-mitigation/ ### The committee chair told utilities that have not filed that no excuse is good enough. > I think it’s imperative for anybody that has not filed that report to realize January is coming. You will file that wildfire mitigation plan, and if you’re dragging your feet, there’s no excuse good enough for me. Source (journalism): https://www.texastribune.org/2026/09/21/texas-wildfire-utilities-mitigation/ ### Xcel Energy lists AI predictive modeling and panoramic cameras among its Texas resiliency plan's wildfire measures. > Measures include enhanced inspections, vegetation clearing, replacing structures, installing weather stations, using AI for predictive modeling, placing panoramic cameras, upgrading fire-resistant equipment, and improving emergency response plans. Source (primary_corporate): https://stories.xcelenergy.com/stories/Powering-through--Xcel-Energy-s-commitment-to-a-resilient-Texas ### The commission lists SPS's approved resiliency plan and its wildfire aim. > Improve detection, prevention, and ability to withstand wildfires Source (primary_official): https://www.puc.texas.gov/industry/electric/system-resiliency-plans/ ### TDEM counts a county as a wildfire risk area when it has asked the state for wildfire help in the preceding 36 months. > requested state assistance in responding to a wildfire, including a request made through TDEM or the Texas A&M Forest Service. Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59053_19_1582214.ZIP ### The rule sets how long a party has to intervene in a utility's plan application. > the intervention deadline is 30 calendar days from the date service of notice is complete. Source (primary_official): https://ftp.puc.texas.gov/public/puct-info/agency/rulesnlaws/subrules/electric/25.60/25.60.pdf --- # Asked for AI camera fire detections, Xcel counted cameras The Public Utility Commission of Texas approved the system resiliency plan of Southwestern Public Service Company, which serves the Panhandle as Xcel Energy, in Docket 57463. The order lists the metrics the utility must carry into its annual reports. One of them is the number of artificial intelligence camera fire detections. The utility filed its first annual report in Project 57941 on May 1st, 2026. Against that metric it reports 33 cameras installed and projects 34 for 2026, and it gives no count of detections. The same report counts 24 wildfire ignitions associated with its overhead power lines and puts the 2026 capital cost of the AI camera project 64.04 percent above the plan's estimate. - Topic: power-and-the-grid - Decided by: Public Utility Commission of Texas (state-agency) - Where: Hutchinson, Moore - Statistical areas: - Borger, TX - Dumas, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=57941&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Ascending - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2025-07-10 · ordered: Commission order approving the SPS system resiliency plan filed in Docket 57463 - 2026-05-01 · filed: SPS files its System Resiliency Plan Annual Report for 2025 in Project 57941 ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-28 · Admitted on the commission's own order and the utility's first annual report under it. - 2026-10-01 · The commission's order still names AI camera fire detections among the metrics, and the utility's annual report under it still counts cameras rather than detections. - 2026-10-04 · Xcel's filing still counts cameras where the commission asked for detections, and the order approving the plan stands. - 2026-10-07 · The approved resiliency plan still stands, and Xcel's filing still counts cameras where the commission asked for detections. - 2026-10-10 · Xcel's approved resiliency plan stands, and its filing still counts cameras where detections were asked for. - 2026-10-15 · Xcel's approved resiliency plan stands, and its filing still counts cameras where detections were asked for. - 2026-10-18 · Xcel's approved plan stands, and its filing still counts cameras where detections were asked for. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · Xcel's answer to the request for AI camera fire detections still counts cameras rather than detections. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The commission approved the SPS resiliency plan application. > including $538.3 million of investments tailored to the characteristics of its service area. Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/57463_108_1518793.PDF ### The order names AI camera fire detections as a metric. > number of artificial intelligence camera fire detections; Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/57463_108_1518793.PDF ### The order requires the metrics in the annual reports. > will include those evaluation metrics and criteria in the annual reports filed under 16 TAC § 25.62(g). Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/57463_108_1518793.PDF ### The first annual report answers the detection metric with a count of cameras. > Number of artificial intelligence camera fire detections. • Actual: 33 cameras installed • Projected: 34 for 2026 Source (primary_corporate): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/57941_7_1637275.PDF ### The report counts ignitions associated with overhead lines. > Number of wildfire ignitions associated with electric overhead power lines within each wildfire risk tier. • Actual: 24 Source (primary_corporate): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/57941_7_1637275.PDF ### The report says what the AI cameras are for. > ability to detect smoke, identify fires, notify the Wildfire Command Center Source (primary_corporate): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/57941_7_1637275.PDF ### The AI camera project's 2026 capital cost runs over the plan's estimate. > resulting in a 64.04% change Source (primary_corporate): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/57941_7_1637275.PDF ### The report names Moore County in the reporting period's one resiliency event. > Moore County issued a local disaster declaration Source (primary_corporate): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/57941_7_1637275.PDF ### The commission lists the SPS plan among approved resiliency plans. > Southwestern Public Service Company (SPS) (Docket No. 57463) Source (primary_official): https://www.puc.texas.gov/industry/electric/system-resiliency-plans/ ### SPS testimony with the plan application gives a protection zone rebuild on circuit BURN1398 in Hutchinson County as a project in its highest wildfire risk area. > BURN1398 in Hutchinson County. This lateral circuit lies in SPS’s highest wildfire Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/57463_2_1452818.ZIP --- # Judges back El Paso Electric's gas plant for Meta only if other customers don't pay El Paso Electric asked the Public Utility Commission of Texas to amend its certificate so it can build and own the McCloud facility. It is a 366 MW natural gas plant in northeast El Paso County made of 813 modular gas generators. It would primarily serve a data center being developed by Wurldwide LLC, which the case record says is owned by Meta Platforms. Meta calls the El Paso site an AI data center that can scale to one gigawatt. On September 23rd, 2026 two administrative law judges issued their proposal for decision. They found a need for capacity to serve the data center. They also found the utility did not show the plant is a cost-effective and reliable resource, and did not show it adequately considered alternatives. They recommend approval only if the utility's other retail customers are held harmless from the plant's capital and operating costs, and denial without that condition. The commission decides at an open meeting. El Paso City Council has since authorized a counteroffer seeking a full hold harmless for ratepayers. The utility serves outside the ERCOT region, so no ERCOT large load rule decides who pays here. - Topic: data-centers - Decided by: Public Utility Commission of Texas (state-agency) - Where: El Paso - Statistical areas: - El Paso, TX - Status: pending - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=59076&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortBy=ItemNumber&SortOrder=Descending - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2025-12-08 · filed: El Paso Electric files its application to amend its certificate for the McCloud facility - 2026-07-08 · hearing: Hearing on the merits before two administrative law judges - 2026-09-23 · filed: The judges file their proposal for decision with the commission ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-29 · Admitted on the judges' proposal for decision and the commission's own docket. - 2026-10-02 · The judges' proposal for decision still conditions approval of the McCloud plant on holding other customers harmless, and the commission has not ruled. - 2026-10-05 · The judges' recommendation on El Paso Electric's gas plant for Meta still waits on the commission. - 2026-10-08 · The commission has not yet acted on the judges' recommendation for El Paso Electric's gas plant. - 2026-10-11 · The commission has still not ruled on the judges' recommendation for El Paso Electric's gas plant. - 2026-10-15 · The commission still has not ruled on the judges' recommendation for El Paso Electric's gas plant. - 2026-10-18 · The commission still has not ruled on the judges' recommendation for El Paso Electric's gas plant for Meta. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-10-24 · The judges' recommendation on El Paso Electric's gas plant for Meta still reads as issued, with other customers kept from paying. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### El Paso Electric applied to build and operate a 366 MW gas plant that would primarily serve a data center in El Paso County. > to construct, own, and operate a 366-megawatt (MW) natural gas generation facility (the McCloud facility or Project) that would primarily serve a data center being developed in El Paso County by Wurldwide LLC (Wurldwide). Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59076_176_1686197.PDF ### The data center company is owned by Meta. > Wurldwide is owned by Meta Platforms Inc. Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59076_176_1686197.PDF ### The plant would be built from 813 modular gas generators. > EPE is proposing to purchase 813 modular 450-kilowatt (kW) gas generators. Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59076_176_1686197.PDF ### The generators sit in small groups, each group on its own step-up transformer. > These generators are typically installed in groups of four or five, each connected to a step-up transformer. Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59076_176_1686197.PDF ### The judges found a need for capacity but no showing that the plant is cost-effective and reliable. > did not show that the McCloud facility is a cost-effective and reliable resource to meet either Wurldwide's need or the need of EPE's broader customer base. Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59076_176_1686197.PDF ### The judges found the utility did not show it adequately considered alternatives. > EPE also failed to show that it adequately considered alternatives to the Project. Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59076_176_1686197.PDF ### The utility chose the vendor without a request for proposals. > did not consider any other alternatives to Enchanted Rock for Wurldwide's generation needs, did not submit a request for proposals (RFP) Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59076_176_1686197.PDF ### The judges' proposed findings put the plant's total estimated cost at approximately $499.8 million, for the generation facilities alone. > The total estimated cost of the McCloud facility is approximately $499.8 million, comprising an estimated cash construction cost of $473 million (including a 10% contingency) and approximately $26.8 million in allowance for funds used during construction. Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59076_176_1686197.PDF ### The data center committed to a peak demand of one gigawatt by the end of 2029. > Wurldwide has committed to a peak demand of one gigawatt (1,000 MW) by the end of 2029. Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59076_176_1686197.PDF ### Without the hold harmless condition, the judges would recommend denial. > Without such a condition, the ALJs would recommend denial of the application. Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59076_176_1686197.PDF ### The proposed order would hold other retail customers harmless from the plant's capital and operating costs for its life, unless El Paso Electric later shows the plant meets the statute's factors. > For the life of the McCloud facility, EPE must hold harmless its retail customers other than Wurldwide from any capital or operating costs of the facility, unless and until EPE demonstrates that, at that time, the McCloud facility satisfies the factors in PURA § 37.056 with respect to its Texas retail customers. Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59076_176_1686197.PDF ### The utility testified that other customers could later be asked to share the cost, in a separate case. > After the bridge period, it may be beneficial to integrate the McCloud facility into EPE's generation resources and revise its rates accordingly, but no decision has been made on this issue at this time. Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59076_176_1686197.PDF ### The commission decides the case at an open meeting. > The Commission will place this case on an open meeting agenda for the Commissioners' consideration. Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59076_176_1686197.PDF ### The plant would sit in northeast El Paso County. > 813 modular natural gas generators to be located in northeast El Paso County, Texas. Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59076_176_1686197.PDF ### El Paso Electric serves outside the ERCOT region. > An electric utility operating solely outside of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) power region, like EPE, must obtain a CCN Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/59076_176_1686197.PDF ### A residential customer filed a public comment in the docket. > Public Comment of Mario Gallegos, El Paso Electric Residential Customer Source (primary_official): https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=59076&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortBy=ItemNumber&SortOrder=Descending ### El Paso City Council authorized a counteroffer seeking a full hold harmless for ratepayers. > Monday, the City of El Paso's City Council authorized the City Attorney, in consultation with the City Manager, to continue settlement negotiations and make a counteroffer for a "full hold harmless" for ratepayers from costs of the McCloud Generation facility. Source (journalism): https://kvia.com/news/2026/09/28/city-council-authorizes-ongoing-negotiations-to-protect-ratepayers-from-meta-data-center-energy-facility/ ### Meta describes the El Paso site as an AI data center that can scale to one gigawatt. > El Paso, Texas, will be home to our newest AI-focused data center, which can scale to 1GW and will support our growing AI workload. Source (primary_corporate): https://about.fb.com/news/2025/10/metas-new-ai-optimized-data-center-el-paso/ --- # A machine scores the longer written answers on English STAAR first The Texas Education Agency scores the constructed responses on English language STAAR tests with an automated scoring engine first. At least 25 percent of those answers then go to people. Where a person scores an answer, that score is the one that counts. A March 2024 agency presentation puts the engine's score as the score of record on about 75 percent of responses. Constructed responses on Spanish language tests are scored by people alone. The agency began the hybrid model in December 2023, and its presentation says full human scoring would have cost $15 million to $20 million more per year. On September 4th, 2026 the agency said about 27,200 students received additional credit after content experts rescored short typed answers. It said none of the regraded responses had been graded by the engine. A district can ask for a constructed response to be rescored by a person for a fee, and the fee is waived if the score changes. - Topic: health-and-education - Decided by: Texas Education Agency (state-agency) - Where: Statewide - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://tea.texas.gov/data-reports/staar/scoring-process-staar-constructed-response-1.pdf - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-09-04 · decided: The agency said about 27,200 students received additional credit after content experts rescored text responses ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-09-30 · Admitted on the agency's own scoring documents and the agency's account of its September rescore. - 2026-10-03 · The agency's scoring documents still say a machine scores the longer English answers first. - 2026-10-06 · The agency still describes machine scoring of the longer written answers on English STAAR as it did. - 2026-10-09 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-12 · English STAAR's longer written answers are still scored first by the automated engine, as the agency describes it. - 2026-10-15 · The agency still describes the automated engine scoring English STAAR's longer answers first. - 2026-10-18 · The agency still describes the automated engine scoring the longer English STAAR answers first. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · The agency's scoring process still sends longer English STAAR answers to the machine first, with people checking a share of them. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### On STAAR tests not given in Spanish, the agency's scoring engine scores constructed responses first, and at least a quarter go on to people. > This means that the responses are initially scored by an automated scoring engine (ASE) and at least 25 percent of student responses are then routed to human scorers. Source (primary_official): https://tea.texas.gov/data-reports/staar/scoring-process-staar-constructed-response-1.pdf ### Constructed responses on the Spanish language tests are scored by people and never by the engine. > Student responses to SCR and ECR questions for STAAR Spanish assessments are 100 percent human scored and do not get scored by the ASE. Source (primary_official): https://tea.texas.gov/data-reports/staar/scoring-process-staar-constructed-response-1.pdf ### Where a person scores an answer, the person's score is the one that counts. > Any student responses that are routed for human scoring maintain the score assigned by the human scorer as the score of record. Source (primary_official): https://tea.texas.gov/data-reports/staar/scoring-process-staar-constructed-response-1.pdf ### The engine learns from answers people have already scored in field tests. > The ASE is trained on student responses and human scores from the field-test data. Source (primary_official): https://tea.texas.gov/data-reports/staar/scoring-process-staar-constructed-response-1.pdf ### A rescore is done by a person. > Rescore requests are sent for human scoring. Source (primary_official): https://tea.texas.gov/data-reports/staar/scoring-process-staar-constructed-response-1.pdf ### The rescore fee is waived when the score changes. > If the score on the constructed-response question changes, the fee is waived. Source (primary_official): https://tea.texas.gov/data-reports/staar/scoring-process-staar-constructed-response-1.pdf ### The agency's presentation puts the engine's score as the score of record on about three in four responses. > Scenario 1: Auto scoring engine assigns score of record Approx. 75% responses Source (primary_official): https://tea.texas.gov/data-reports/staar/hybrid-scoring-key-questions-2.pdf ### The agency says full human scoring of the redesigned test would have cost more each year. > maintaining full human scoring would have cost $15-20M more per year Source (primary_official): https://tea.texas.gov/data-reports/staar/hybrid-scoring-key-questions-2.pdf ### The engine is programmed from a sample of answers people scored in field tests. > The engine uses a sample of ~3,000 human scored responses from the field test for programming. Source (primary_official): https://tea.texas.gov/data-reports/staar/hybrid-scoring-key-questions-2.pdf ### The move to hybrid scoring began in December 2023. > The hybrid scoring transition started in December 2023, and student responses went from fully human scoring to hybrid scoring. Source (primary_official): https://tea.texas.gov/data-reports/staar/hybrid-scoring-key-questions-2.pdf ### The agency said about 27,200 students received additional credit for their text responses. > Texas Education Agency officials said Friday about 27,200 students received additional credit for their text responses to some questions on the reading portion of the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness. Source (journalism): https://www.texastribune.org/2026/09/04/school-districts-improved-ratings-staar-rescore-2026/ ### The agency said none of the regraded answers had been scored by the engine. > However, Kobersky said none of the regraded responses were graded by its “automated scoring engine.” Source (journalism): https://www.texastribune.org/2026/09/04/school-districts-improved-ratings-staar-rescore-2026/ ### The regraded answers were short typed responses read again by content experts. > Content experts rescored “text entry” responses, where students type brief text — such as a number, word, or phrase. Source (journalism): https://www.texastribune.org/2026/09/04/school-districts-improved-ratings-staar-rescore-2026/ ### The agency's example of what the review credits is a misspelled right answer. > For example: If the correct answer to a question was ‘first,’ content experts may decide to award credit for a student that entered the response ‘ferst.’ Source (journalism): https://www.texastribune.org/2026/09/04/school-districts-improved-ratings-staar-rescore-2026/ ### The agency said no score goes down as a result of the review. > No students’ scores will be lowered as a result of the review. Source (journalism): https://www.texastribune.org/2026/09/04/school-districts-improved-ratings-staar-rescore-2026/ --- # Texas Children's and Baylor researchers name a likely genetic cause of a rare disorder after an AI tool flagged the gene Researchers at Texas Children's Hospital's Duncan Neurological Research Institute, Baylor College of Medicine and the Texome Project published in the American Journal of Human Genetics. They report that variants in the gene BRSK1 are a likely diagnosis for a rare neurodevelopmental disorder. The work began with a child enrolled in the Texome Project, which provides free genetic testing for medically underserved people with rare and undiagnosed conditions. Standard genetic analysis of the child and a parent found no answer. An AI based tool called AI-MARRVEL then picked out a rare change in BRSK1 as a promising candidate. Other families answered through the GeneMatcher network and the team studied 10 affected individuals from seven unrelated families. Fruit flies did the confirming. Flies with the fly version of the gene disabled had trouble moving and lived shorter lives. The normal human gene largely corrected that and the patients' variants only partly did. The release describes a research finding and does not say the tool is used in routine diagnosis at the hospital. - Topic: health-and-education - Decided by: Duncan Neurological Research Institute at Texas Children's Hospital, with Baylor College of Medicine and the Texome Project (company) - Where: Harris - Statistical areas: - Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://www.texome.org/ - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-09-28 · filed: Texas Children's release announcing the published study ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-10-02 · Admitted on the hospital's own account of the published study. An AI tool pointed at the gene. Families found through a research network and experiments in fruit flies are what made it a likely diagnosis. - 2026-10-05 · The researchers' account of the likely genetic cause the AI tool flagged still reads as published. - 2026-10-08 · The researchers' account of the genetic cause the AI tool flagged still reads as published. - 2026-10-11 · The account of the genetic cause the AI tool flagged still reads as published. - 2026-10-15 · The account of the gene the AI tool flagged reads as published. - 2026-10-18 · The account of the gene the AI tool flagged for the Texome child reads as published. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · The researchers' account of the AI tool that flagged the likely genetic cause still reads as published. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The researchers identify variants in BRSK1 as a likely diagnosis for a rare neurodevelopmental disorder. > have identified variants in gene BRSK1 as a likely diagnosis for individuals with a rare and complex neurodevelopmental disorder who until now had not received an explanation for their condition. Source (primary_corporate): https://www.texaschildrens.org/content/news-release/together-human-genetics-ai-and-animal-studies-provide-diagnosis-for-rare ### The study appears in the American Journal of Human Genetics. > The study appears in the American Journal of Human Genetics. Source (primary_corporate): https://www.texaschildrens.org/content/news-release/together-human-genetics-ai-and-animal-studies-provide-diagnosis-for-rare ### The work began with a child in the Texome Project, which provides free genetic testing for underserved people with rare undiagnosed conditions. > The project began with a child enrolled in the Texome Project, a program that provides free genetic testing for medically underserved individuals with rare, undiagnosed conditions Source (primary_corporate): https://www.texaschildrens.org/content/news-release/together-human-genetics-ai-and-animal-studies-provide-diagnosis-for-rare ### Standard analysis found no answer and the AI-MARRVEL tool highlighted a rare change in BRSK1. > Standard genetic analyses of a parent and child with the condition did not reveal an answer, but when a new artificial intelligence-based tool called AI-MARRVEL analyzed the genomic data, it highlighted a rare change in the BRSK1 gene as a promising candidate for a genetic diagnosis. Source (primary_corporate): https://www.texaschildrens.org/content/news-release/together-human-genetics-ai-and-animal-studies-provide-diagnosis-for-rare ### After sharing through GeneMatcher the team studied ten affected people from seven unrelated families. > Altogether, we studied 10 affected individuals from seven unrelated families Source (primary_corporate): https://www.texaschildrens.org/content/news-release/together-human-genetics-ai-and-animal-studies-provide-diagnosis-for-rare ### Flies with the fly gene disabled had trouble moving and lived shorter lives. > When the fly gene was disabled, the flies developed difficulties moving, showed increased sensitivity to stressors that can trigger seizure-like behavior, became more vulnerable to heat-induced paralysis and lived shorter lives. Source (primary_corporate): https://www.texaschildrens.org/content/news-release/together-human-genetics-ai-and-animal-studies-provide-diagnosis-for-rare ### The normal human gene largely corrected the flies. > the human gene largely corrected the flies' movement and neurological problems Source (primary_corporate): https://www.texaschildrens.org/content/news-release/together-human-genetics-ai-and-animal-studies-provide-diagnosis-for-rare ### The patients' variants only partly restored the flies. > when we introduced the gene variants found in affected individuals, the neurological and movement problems were only partially restored Source (primary_corporate): https://www.texaschildrens.org/content/news-release/together-human-genetics-ai-and-animal-studies-provide-diagnosis-for-rare ### The release is dated September 28th, 2026. > HOUSTON (September 28, 2026) Source (primary_corporate): https://www.texaschildrens.org/content/news-release/together-human-genetics-ai-and-animal-studies-provide-diagnosis-for-rare ### The Texome Project serves people who have no insurance or can't pay for genomic testing. > The Texome Project seeks to address disparities in genomic medicine by making genetic services from leading experts in the field more accessible to participants who have no insurance or are unable to pay for genomic testing. Source (primary_corporate): https://www.texome.org/ --- # The Fifteenth Court of Appeals leaves Bot Auto free to keep building driverless trucks while TuSimple's successor sues it over trade secrets The Fifteenth Court of Appeals affirmed a Business Court ruling in Harris County that denied CreateAI Holdings a temporary injunction against Bot Auto TX. CreateAI was TuSimple, founded to build driverless 18-wheelers, and it changed its name in December 2024. It sued under the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act, saying Bot Auto misappropriated its autonomous vehicle technology. Bot Auto was started by TuSimple's fired co-founder and chief executive and is still developing autonomous trucking. The court found CreateAI unlikely to suffer an injury that money damages can't cover, because it no longer runs autonomous trucking in the United States. It has turned to AI entertainment for Asian markets. The court decided only the injunction, on what it called a preliminary record. - Topic: state-policy - Decided by: Fifteenth Court of Appeals (court) - Where: Harris - Statistical areas: - Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Closed - Take part: https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2026/09/15/createai_holdings_inc._fka_tusimple_holdings_inc._v._bot_auto_tx_inc..pdf - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-09-15 · decided: Memorandum opinion affirming the denial of a temporary injunction ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-10-02 · Admitted on the appeals court's own opinion. The company that sued has left driverless trucking, and the court said that is why money can answer its claim. - 2026-10-05 · The Fifteenth Court of Appeals opinion still leaves Bot Auto free to keep building its driverless trucks while the trade secret case goes on. - 2026-10-08 · Bot Auto is still free to keep building its driverless trucks while the trade secret case continues. - 2026-10-11 · Bot Auto can still keep building driverless trucks while the trade secret case goes on. - 2026-10-15 · Bot Auto can still build driverless trucks while the trade secret case continues. - 2026-10-18 · Bot Auto is still free to build driverless trucks while the trade secret suit goes on. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · The appeals court ruling still leaves Bot Auto free to build driverless trucks while the trade secret suit goes on. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The court filed its opinion affirming on September 15th, 2026. > Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 15, 2026 Source (primary_official): https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2026/09/15/createai_holdings_inc._fka_tusimple_holdings_inc._v._bot_auto_tx_inc..pdf ### The appeal came from the Business Court in Harris County. > On Appeal from the Business Court Division 11A Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 24-BC11A-0007 Source (primary_official): https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2026/09/15/createai_holdings_inc._fka_tusimple_holdings_inc._v._bot_auto_tx_inc..pdf ### CreateAI was an autonomous vehicle company and has pivoted to AI entertainment. > was formerly an autonomous vehicle company that has since pivoted to AI-enhanced entertainment. Source (primary_official): https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2026/09/15/createai_holdings_inc._fka_tusimple_holdings_inc._v._bot_auto_tx_inc..pdf ### Bot Auto is still developing autonomous trucking. > Appellee Bot Auto is still actively engaged in the development of autonomous trucking technology Source (primary_official): https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2026/09/15/createai_holdings_inc._fka_tusimple_holdings_inc._v._bot_auto_tx_inc..pdf ### The company was founded to build driverless 18-wheelers. > At its founding in 2015, CreateAI focused on autonomous trucking, specifically to develop 18-wheelers capable of fully driverless Source (primary_official): https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2026/09/15/createai_holdings_inc._fka_tusimple_holdings_inc._v._bot_auto_tx_inc..pdf ### It changed its name from TuSimple in December 2024. > Formerly known as TuSimple Holdings, Inc., the petitioner company changed its name to CreateAI on December 11, 2024. Source (primary_official): https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2026/09/15/createai_holdings_inc._fka_tusimple_holdings_inc._v._bot_auto_tx_inc..pdf ### It turned to AI entertainment for Asian markets. > In December of 2024, it redirected its business to AI-powered digital entertainment crafted primarily for Asian markets. Source (primary_official): https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2026/09/15/createai_holdings_inc._fka_tusimple_holdings_inc._v._bot_auto_tx_inc..pdf ### The company fired its co-founder and chief executive. > the company fired its co-founder and CEO, Dr. Xiaodi Hou Source (primary_official): https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2026/09/15/createai_holdings_inc._fka_tusimple_holdings_inc._v._bot_auto_tx_inc..pdf ### He started Bot Auto. > Within the month, Dr. Hou started Bot Auto Source (primary_official): https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2026/09/15/createai_holdings_inc._fka_tusimple_holdings_inc._v._bot_auto_tx_inc..pdf ### The court found money damages could cover any injury because CreateAI left U.S. autonomous trucking. > Further, we find that CreateAI is unlikely to suffer imminent injury that cannot be compensated by money damages because it no longer maintains U.S. autonomous trucking operations. Source (primary_official): https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2026/09/15/createai_holdings_inc._fka_tusimple_holdings_inc._v._bot_auto_tx_inc..pdf ### The court ruled on a preliminary record. > Recognizing that this case is before us solely on a preliminary record Source (primary_official): https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2026/09/15/createai_holdings_inc._fka_tusimple_holdings_inc._v._bot_auto_tx_inc..pdf ### The suit is under the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act. > the company sued Bot Auto under the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act Source (primary_official): https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2026/09/15/createai_holdings_inc._fka_tusimple_holdings_inc._v._bot_auto_tx_inc..pdf --- # National Science Foundation makes Texas Southern University one of five regional nodes in an HBCU network for AI and quantum science The National Science Foundation made a cooperative agreement with Texas Southern University in Houston under its Accelerating Research Translation program. It is Texas Southern's part of the HBCU AI - Quantum Innovation Network, which runs through five regional nodes with Clark Atlanta University as the lead institution. Texas Southern leads one of the five. The abstract says the network will build education, workforce preparation and research ties with industry, government, small businesses and community groups. It names regional meetings and workshops, shared training resources and pathways for students and faculty. The award record gives the start of the work as October 1st, 2026. - Topic: research-and-science - Decided by: U.S. National Science Foundation (federal) - Where: Harris - Statistical areas: - Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=2619041 - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-09-17 · decided: Award date on the NSF award record - 2026-10-01 · effective: Start date on the NSF award record ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-10-02 · Admitted on the foundation's own award record. Texas Southern now leads a regional node of a national HBCU network on AI and quantum science. - 2026-10-05 · Texas Southern University still holds its place as one of the regional nodes in the NSF network. - 2026-10-08 · Texas Southern University is still one of the regional nodes in the NSF network. - 2026-10-11 · Texas Southern University remains one of the regional nodes in the NSF network. - 2026-10-15 · Texas Southern University remains one of the regional nodes in the foundation's network. - 2026-10-18 · Texas Southern University remains one of the five regional nodes in the foundation's AI and quantum network. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · Texas Southern University still holds its place as a regional node in the NSF network for AI and quantum science. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The award is a collaborative research project for an HBCU network on AI and quantum science. > Collaborative Research: The HBCU AI - Quantum Innovation Network (HAQIN) Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2619041.json?printFields=id,title,awardeeName,date,startDate,expDate,estimatedTotalAmt,fundsObligatedAmt,fundProgramName,abstractText ### The project will set up a national network of HBCUs focused on AI and quantum science. > This project will establish a national network of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and partner organizations focused on artificial intelligence (AI) and quantum science. Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2619041.json?printFields=id,title,awardeeName,date,startDate,expDate,estimatedTotalAmt,fundsObligatedAmt,fundProgramName,abstractText ### Clark Atlanta leads and Texas Southern leads one of five regional nodes. > the project will operate through five regional nodes led by Clark Atlanta University, Central State University, Norfolk State University, North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University, and Texas Southern University. Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2619041.json?printFields=id,title,awardeeName,date,startDate,expDate,estimatedTotalAmt,fundsObligatedAmt,fundProgramName,abstractText ### The award is under the Accelerating Research Translation program. > ART-Accelerating Rsrch Trnsltn Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2619041.json?printFields=id,title,awardeeName,date,startDate,expDate,estimatedTotalAmt,fundsObligatedAmt,fundProgramName,abstractText ### The award was made on September 17th, 2026. > "date":"09/17/2026" Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2619041.json?printFields=id,title,awardeeName,date,startDate,expDate,estimatedTotalAmt,fundsObligatedAmt,fundProgramName,abstractText ### The work starts on October 1st, 2026. > "startDate":"10/01/2026" Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2619041.json?printFields=id,title,awardeeName,date,startDate,expDate,estimatedTotalAmt,fundsObligatedAmt,fundProgramName,abstractText ### The awardee is Texas Southern University in Houston. > "awardeeCity":"HOUSTON" Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2619041.json?printFields=id,title,awardeeName,date,startDate,expDate,estimatedTotalAmt,fundsObligatedAmt,fundProgramName,abstractText ### Activities include regional meetings, workshops, shared training and pathways for students and faculty. > Project activities will include identifying institutional strengths and needs, supporting regional meetings and workshops, developing shared training resources, and creating practical pathways for students, faculty, and regional partners to engage in fast-growing technology fields. Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2619041.json?printFields=id,title,awardeeName,date,startDate,expDate,estimatedTotalAmt,fundsObligatedAmt,fundProgramName,abstractText --- # Kodiak names Interstate 45 from Dallas to Houston as its first driverless truck lane, and says it closes its safety case before the driver comes out Kodiak AI announced on September 25th, 2026 that its first driverless long-haul lane will run along Interstate 45 between the Dallas and Houston areas. It plans unsupervised service there by the end of 2026. Four days later it named IKEA as its launch shipper, on a leg of IKEA's route from its Baytown distribution center to its Frisco store. The company says its trucks now run between its Lancaster hub and Houston without human intervention, and that the safety observer on those runs never touched the wheel. It says it closes its safety case before driverless launch. That case is the written argument that its driving system can operate safely on that road. The company measures that case by the share of its claims and evidence that are materially complete. It reported 84% in February, 86% through April, 91% in July and 93% at the end of August, and it expects to reach 100% by year end. Every figure here is the company's own, and none of it has been reviewed by a regulator. - Topic: state-policy - Decided by: Kodiak AI (company) - Where: Dallas, Harris - Statistical areas: - Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX - Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX - Status: pending - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://kodiak.ai/news/kodiak-names-dallas-houston-driverless-launch-lane - Last checked: 2026-10-23 ## Dates - 2026-09-25 · filed: Date on the company's announcement naming the lane - 2026-09-29 · filed: Date on the company's announcement naming IKEA as launch shipper ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-10-03 · Admitted on the company's own announcements. The lane and the launch shipper are named, the observer is still on the runs, and the company's readiness measure is its own account of its own safety case. - 2026-10-06 · Kodiak's own announcements still name the Dallas to Houston lane and its launch shipper. Its readiness claim is still the company's account of its own safety case. - 2026-10-09 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-10-12 · Kodiak still names the Dallas to Houston run on Interstate 45 as its first driverless lane. No date for an empty cab has been given. - 2026-10-15 · Kodiak still names Interstate 45 from Dallas to Houston as its first driverless lane, with no date for an empty cab. - 2026-10-20 · Kodiak's October 6th release puts its readiness measure for the Interstate 45 launch at 96% at the end of September, up from 93% a month earlier. The company still names the end of 2026 for an empty cab and gives no firmer date. - 2026-10-23 · Kodiak still names Interstate 45 from Dallas to Houston as its first driverless lane and still gives the end of 2026 for an empty cab, with no firmer date. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The company's first driverless long-haul lane runs along Interstate 45 between the Dallas and Houston areas. > Kodiak’s first driverless long-haul lane will connect the Dallas–Fort Worth and Houston metropolitan areas, 219 miles apart along Interstate 45. Source (primary_corporate): https://kodiak.ai/news/kodiak-names-dallas-houston-driverless-launch-lane ### The company plans unsupervised driverless service on that lane by the end of 2026. > today announced its plans to launch unsupervised long-haul driverless service on the Dallas-Houston freight lane by the end of 2026. Source (primary_corporate): https://kodiak.ai/news/kodiak-names-dallas-houston-driverless-launch-lane ### The company says its trucks now complete runs between its Lancaster hub and Houston without human intervention. > now consistently completes deliveries between its Lancaster, Texas, hub and its launch destination in Houston without human intervention. Source (primary_corporate): https://kodiak.ai/news/kodiak-names-dallas-houston-driverless-launch-lane ### The company says the safety observer on those runs never touched the wheel. > During these end-to-end deliveries, the safety observer never touched the wheel, including on surface streets. Source (primary_corporate): https://kodiak.ai/news/kodiak-names-dallas-houston-driverless-launch-lane ### The company's readiness measure for its long-haul safety case stood at 93 percent at the end of August. > As of the end of August, Kodiak’s Autonomy Readiness Measure (ARM) for the long-haul domain stood at 93%. Source (primary_corporate): https://kodiak.ai/news/kodiak-names-dallas-houston-driverless-launch-lane ### The measure is the share of the safety case's claims and evidence that are materially complete. > The ARM measures the percentage of claims and evidence in Kodiak’s safety case for driverless operations that are materially complete. Source (primary_corporate): https://kodiak.ai/news/kodiak-names-dallas-houston-driverless-launch-lane ### The company expects to reach the full measure and launch by year end. > The company expects to reach 100% and launch driverless operations by year end. Source (primary_corporate): https://kodiak.ai/news/kodiak-names-dallas-houston-driverless-launch-lane ### The company has hauled freight on the route since 2019 with safety drivers in the cab. > Kodiak has delivered freight on the Dallas to Houston route since 2019 with safety drivers in the cab. Source (primary_corporate): https://kodiak.ai/news/kodiak-names-dallas-houston-driverless-launch-lane ### The company says its forward looking statements are not predictions of actual performance. > on the current expectations of Kodiak's management and are not predictions of actual performance. Source (primary_corporate): https://kodiak.ai/news/kodiak-names-dallas-houston-driverless-launch-lane ### IKEA is to be the launch shipper later in 2026. > IKEA will be Kodiak’s driverless launch shipper partner later in 2026 Source (primary_corporate): https://kodiak.ai/news/ikea-driverless-launch-partner ### The company states its record carrying IKEA goods with an observer aboard. > Over the last four years, Kodiak has delivered more than 1,300 loads and logged more than 750,000 miles while autonomously carrying IKEA goods with a safety observer aboard. Source (primary_corporate): https://kodiak.ai/news/ikea-driverless-launch-partner ### The first driver-out leg runs between the company's Houston and Dallas-area facilities. > The initial driver-out leg will cover 219 miles, primarily along Interstate 45 between Kodiak’s Houston and Dallas-area facilities. Source (primary_corporate): https://kodiak.ai/news/ikea-driverless-launch-partner ### The leg is part of IKEA's route from its Baytown distribution center to its Frisco store. > This is part of the established 292-mile delivery route connecting the IKEA distribution center in Baytown with the IKEA store in Frisco. Source (primary_corporate): https://kodiak.ai/news/ikea-driverless-launch-partner ### The company reported the readiness measure month by month earlier in 2026. > The company reported an ARM of 84% as of February, 86% through April and 91% as of July. Source (primary_corporate): https://kodiak.ai/news/driverless-long-haul-on-track-arm-93 ### The company defines its safety case. > Kodiak’s safety case is a structured argument, supported by evidence, that the Kodiak Driver, the company's autonomous driving system, can operate safely in a defined operating environment. Source (primary_corporate): https://kodiak.ai/news/driverless-long-haul-on-track-arm-93 ### The company says it closes its safety case in advance of the driverless launch. > the testing and validation required to close its safety case in advance of driverless highway launch Source (primary_corporate): https://kodiak.ai/news/kodiak-names-dallas-houston-driverless-launch-lane ### Kodiak says its readiness measure for driverless long haul reached 96 percent at the end of September and that it remains on track for an unsupervised launch by the end of 2026. > The company's Autonomy Readiness Measure ("ARM") for long-haul driverless operations reached 96% at the end of September 2026, up from 93% at the end of August. Source (primary_corporate): https://kodiak.ai/news/autonomy-readiness-96-driverless-long-haul-launch --- # National Science Foundation funds Sagebrush, an AI inference platform for researchers nationwide, hosted at UT Austin's supercomputing center The National Science Foundation made a cooperative agreement with the University of Texas at Austin under its National AI Research Resource program. It pays for Sagebrush, a platform that runs large AI models for researchers on SambaNova processors rather than on GPUs. It is hosted at the Texas Advanced Computing Center and is meant for researchers across the country, reached through Jupyter notebooks and chatbot interfaces. The award record dates the award to July 20th, 2026 and gives September 15th, 2026 as the start of the work. It runs to August 31st, 2028. The abstract names no Texas project it will serve and no results yet. - Topic: research-and-science - Decided by: U.S. National Science Foundation (federal) - Where: Travis - Statistical areas: - Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=2537075 - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-07-20 · decided: Award date on the NSF award record - 2026-09-15 · effective: Start date on the NSF award record ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-10-03 · Admitted on the foundation's own award record. The platform's work began on September 15th and nothing it has produced is on the record yet. - 2026-10-06 · The foundation's award for Sagebrush, the AI inference platform, still stands as announced. - 2026-10-09 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-12 · The foundation's Sagebrush award for an AI inference platform hosted in Texas still stands. - 2026-10-15 · The Sagebrush award for an AI inference platform hosted at UT Austin still stands. - 2026-10-18 · The Sagebrush award for a research inference platform at UT Austin's supercomputing center still stands. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · Sagebrush, the NSF funded inference platform, is still hosted at UT Austin's supercomputing center. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The award is for Sagebrush, an AI inference resource for researchers across the country. > Category II: Sagebrush - An AI Inference Resource for ACCESS, NAIRR, and the Nation Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2537075.json?printFields=id,title,awardeeName,date,startDate,expDate,estimatedTotalAmt,fundsObligatedAmt,fundProgramName,abstractText,piFirstName,piLastName,awardeeCity ### The abstract describes Sagebrush as a generative AI inference platform for scientific discovery. > Sagebrush is a transformative generative artificial intelligence (AI) inference platform, designed to accelerate scientific discovery by providing researchers with a powerful tool for AI-driven discovery. Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2537075.json?printFields=id,title,awardeeName,date,startDate,expDate,estimatedTotalAmt,fundsObligatedAmt,fundProgramName,abstractText,piFirstName,piLastName,awardeeCity ### The platform runs on SambaNova processors rather than GPUs. > Sagebrush addresses these challenges by leveraging cutting-edge SambaNova AI processors Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2537075.json?printFields=id,title,awardeeName,date,startDate,expDate,estimatedTotalAmt,fundsObligatedAmt,fundProgramName,abstractText,piFirstName,piLastName,awardeeCity ### It is hosted at the Texas Advanced Computing Center. > Hosted at the Texas Advanced Computing Center (TACC) Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2537075.json?printFields=id,title,awardeeName,date,startDate,expDate,estimatedTotalAmt,fundsObligatedAmt,fundProgramName,abstractText,piFirstName,piLastName,awardeeCity ### Researchers reach it through Jupyter notebooks and chatbot interfaces. > By offering user-friendly tools like Jupyter notebooks and web-based chatbot interfaces, the platform lowers technical barriers Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2537075.json?printFields=id,title,awardeeName,date,startDate,expDate,estimatedTotalAmt,fundsObligatedAmt,fundProgramName,abstractText,piFirstName,piLastName,awardeeCity ### The award is made under the National AI Research Resource program. > NAIRR-Nat AI Research Resource Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2537075.json?printFields=id,title,awardeeName,date,startDate,expDate,estimatedTotalAmt,fundsObligatedAmt,fundProgramName,abstractText,piFirstName,piLastName,awardeeCity ### The award is a cooperative agreement. > "transType":"Cooperative Agreement" Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2537075.json?printFields=id,title,awardeeName,date,startDate,expDate,estimatedTotalAmt,fundsObligatedAmt,fundProgramName,abstractText,piFirstName,piLastName,awardeeCity ### The award was made on July 20th, 2026. > "date":"07/20/2026" Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2537075.json?printFields=id,title,awardeeName,date,startDate,expDate,estimatedTotalAmt,fundsObligatedAmt,fundProgramName,abstractText,piFirstName,piLastName,awardeeCity ### The work starts on September 15th, 2026. > "startDate":"09/15/2026" Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2537075.json?printFields=id,title,awardeeName,date,startDate,expDate,estimatedTotalAmt,fundsObligatedAmt,fundProgramName,abstractText,piFirstName,piLastName,awardeeCity ### The award runs to August 31st, 2028. > "expDate":"08/31/2028" Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2537075.json?printFields=id,title,awardeeName,date,startDate,expDate,estimatedTotalAmt,fundsObligatedAmt,fundProgramName,abstractText,piFirstName,piLastName,awardeeCity ### The awardee is the University of Texas at Austin. > "awardeeName":"University of Texas at Austin" Source (primary_official): https://api.nsf.gov/services/v1/awards/2537075.json?printFields=id,title,awardeeName,date,startDate,expDate,estimatedTotalAmt,fundsObligatedAmt,fundProgramName,abstractText,piFirstName,piLastName,awardeeCity --- # State education staff helped Alpha School's AI platform into pilots in Houston, Aldine and Fort Davis Emails obtained by The Texas Tribune and ProPublica show Texas Education Agency staff helped connect Alpha School's AI learning platform with public school districts. Education Commissioner Mike Morath and his staff visited Alpha campuses, helped with a one page explainer for districts and connected Alpha associates with district leaders. The newsrooms report that at least 10 districts were approached and at least three launched pilots. Those three are Houston ISD, Fort Davis ISD in West Texas and Aldine ISD near Houston, and all three say they will use the software for supplemental learning. Fort Davis will use it in its K-8 classrooms for students who need help in reading and math. Aldine will deploy it to roughly 300 students at four middle schools who need support in math. Houston ISD says it plans to use the tool with students who have strong test scores and is not paying Alpha. It asked the attorney general to withhold the contract from the newsrooms. TEA says it has no formal partnership with Alpha and left the decision to the districts. The State Board of Education had voted down the Alpha leaders' bid for a Texas charter that would use the same technology. The board's own minutes from June 2025 record a veto of one charter proposed on a two hour learning model, Valenta Academy in Bastrop. Neither the minutes nor the reporting names Alpha as its applicant. - Topic: health-and-education - Decided by: Houston ISD, Aldine ISD and Fort Davis ISD (school-district) - Where: Harris, Jeff Davis - Statistical areas: - Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://fdisd.com/page/board-meetings - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2025-06-27 · decided: The State Board of Education adopted the veto of Valenta Academy, a Bastrop charter proposed on a two hour learning model - 2026-10-01 · decided: The Texas Tribune and ProPublica reported the three district pilots and the agency emails behind them ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-10-04 · Admitted on The Texas Tribune and ProPublica's account of the agency emails and the district pilots. The State Board of Education's own minutes of its June 2025 charter vetoes are cited beside it. - 2026-10-07 · The Tribune's account and the state board's own minutes still read as cited, and the board's vote against the charter stands. - 2026-10-10 · The board's vote against the Alpha charter stands, and its minutes and the Tribune's account read as cited. - 2026-10-15 · The board's vote against the Alpha charter stands, and its record reads as cited. - 2026-10-18 · The board's vote against the Alpha charter stands. The record of staff helping the platform into pilots reads as cited. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · The reporting on Alpha platform pilots in Houston, Aldine and Fort Davis still reads as published. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### At least three of those districts launched pilot programs using the AI tool. They are Houston, Fort Davis in West Texas, and Aldine near Houston. > at least three of those districts — Houston; Fort Davis, in West Texas; and Aldine, near Houston — launched pilot programs incorporating the AI tool Source (journalism): https://www.texastribune.org/2026/10/01/alpha-school-ai-texas-public-schools-mike-morath/ ### Emails show state education officials and Alpha affiliates approached at least 10 school districts about the AI program. > state education officials and Alpha affiliates approached at least 10 school districts about the AI program Source (journalism): https://www.texastribune.org/2026/10/01/alpha-school-ai-texas-public-schools-mike-morath/ ### Emails obtained through public information requests show TEA staff helped with a one-page explainer for school districts and connected Alpha-linked companies with district leaders. > helped with a one-page explainer about the program to share with school districts and connected them with district leaders Source (journalism): https://www.texastribune.org/2026/10/01/alpha-school-ai-texas-public-schools-mike-morath/ ### Emails show Morath visited Alpha's campuses again with six other TEA leaders, and his staff timed the visit for the same day as Houston Superintendent Mike Miles. > Emails show the commissioner visited Alpha’s campuses again with six other TEA leaders. His staff coordinated to go on the same day as Houston Superintendent Mike Miles. Source (journalism): https://www.texastribune.org/2026/10/01/alpha-school-ai-texas-public-schools-mike-morath/ ### Morath answered an email from Alpha School associates in September 2025 who wanted to discuss using their AI program in Texas classrooms. > In September 2025, Morath responded to an email from associates of a private school chain called Alpha School Source (journalism): https://www.texastribune.org/2026/10/01/alpha-school-ai-texas-public-schools-mike-morath/ ### Morath's reply asked to schedule a follow-up discussion. > I’d love to schedule a follow-up discussion Source (journalism): https://www.texastribune.org/2026/10/01/alpha-school-ai-texas-public-schools-mike-morath/ ### The Tribune reports Morath offered to personally introduce an Alpha leader to the superintendent he appointed to run the state takeover of Houston ISD. > Morath offered to personally introduce an Alpha leader to the superintendent he appointed to lead the yearslong state takeover of Houston Independent School District Source (journalism): https://www.texastribune.org/2026/10/01/alpha-school-ai-texas-public-schools-mike-morath/ ### Studient is one of the companies connected to Alpha, and it uses Alpha's AI technology, which is now often called TimeBack. > Studient, a company that uses Alpha’s AI technology, now often called TimeBack Source (journalism): https://www.texastribune.org/2026/10/01/alpha-school-ai-texas-public-schools-mike-morath/ ### Andrew Hodge, TEA's associate commissioner of system innovation, emailed Joe Liemandt on November 5th asking to discuss piloting a few supplemental Tier 3 instances of Alpha's model in Texas. > possibilities for piloting a few supplemental (you called this Tier 3 in your outline) instances in the state Source (journalism): https://www.texastribune.org/2026/10/01/alpha-school-ai-texas-public-schools-mike-morath/ ### Michael Strange, a member of Hodge's team who oversees TEA's blended learning programs, sent Alpha associates a to-do list that included drafting a one-page explainer of the pilot program for districts. > which included him drafting a one-page explainer of the pilot program to share with districts Source (journalism): https://www.texastribune.org/2026/10/01/alpha-school-ai-texas-public-schools-mike-morath/ ### TEA staffer Michael Strange praised the progress Alpha and Studient officials were making on securing pilots with Fort Davis and Aldine by the middle of June. > By mid-June, Strange applauded their progress securing pilots with Fort Davis and Aldine. Source (journalism): https://www.texastribune.org/2026/10/01/alpha-school-ai-texas-public-schools-mike-morath/ ### All three districts said they will use the software for supplemental learning rather than adopt Alpha's full model. > All three districts with pilot programs said they will use the AI software for supplemental learning rather than fully implementing the Alpha School model Source (journalism): https://www.texastribune.org/2026/10/01/alpha-school-ai-texas-public-schools-mike-morath/ ### Fort Davis ISD enrolls around 800 students and will deploy the model in its K-8 classrooms for students needing extra help in reading and math, according to its deputy superintendent Michelle Hartmann. > which enrolls around 800 students, said it will deploy the model in its K-8 classrooms for students who need additional help in reading and math Source (journalism): https://www.texastribune.org/2026/10/01/alpha-school-ai-texas-public-schools-mike-morath/ ### Michelle Hartmann, deputy superintendent at Fort Davis ISD, said the district sees the pilot as an added layer of intervention. > We’re excited because we see it as an opportunity to provide an extra layer of intervention Source (journalism): https://www.texastribune.org/2026/10/01/alpha-school-ai-texas-public-schools-mike-morath/ ### Aldine ISD will use the platform with roughly 300 students at four middle school campuses who need support in math. > Aldine will deploy the online platform to roughly 300 students across four middle school campuses that require support in math. Source (journalism): https://www.texastribune.org/2026/10/01/alpha-school-ai-texas-public-schools-mike-morath/ ### Houston ISD's press office said the district will use the Alpha technology with high-scoring students to test whether the approach can speed up academic growth. > Houston ISD plans to use the Alpha technology for students with strong test scores “to evaluate whether this instructional approach can accelerate academic growth Source (journalism): https://www.texastribune.org/2026/10/01/alpha-school-ai-texas-public-schools-mike-morath/ ### Houston ISD's press office said the district is not paying Alpha for the pilot. > The office said Houston ISD wasn’t paying Alpha for the pilot but did not provide more details. Source (journalism): https://www.texastribune.org/2026/10/01/alpha-school-ai-texas-public-schools-mike-morath/ ### Houston ISD asked the Texas attorney general to let it withhold the pilot contract from reporters under the public records act. > The district asked the Texas attorney general to withhold the contract from the newsrooms under the state’s public records act. Source (journalism): https://www.texastribune.org/2026/10/01/alpha-school-ai-texas-public-schools-mike-morath/ ### TEA said in a written statement that it has no formal partnership with Alpha. > there is no formal partnership between TEA and Alpha Schools Source (journalism): https://www.texastribune.org/2026/10/01/alpha-school-ai-texas-public-schools-mike-morath/ ### TEA's statement said its officials connected interested district leaders with the program and left the decision to use it to the districts. > connected district leaders who were interested in Alpha’s program but left the decision up to them on whether to use it Source (journalism): https://www.texastribune.org/2026/10/01/alpha-school-ai-texas-public-schools-mike-morath/ ### Ector County, Fort Bend, Irving, Pecos and Pflugerville confirmed they were approached about partnering with Alpha and did not pursue an agreement. > at least five school districts — Ector County, Fort Bend, Irving, Pecos and Pflugerville — that confirmed they were approached about partnering with Alpha but did not pursue an agreement Source (journalism): https://www.texastribune.org/2026/10/01/alpha-school-ai-texas-public-schools-mike-morath/ ### Ector County was the only one of the five to give a reason, saying its school day isn't structured to support the pilot. > determined our school day is not currently structured to effectively implement or support the pilot Source (journalism): https://www.texastribune.org/2026/10/01/alpha-school-ai-texas-public-schools-mike-morath/ ### The Texas Tribune and ProPublica reported on October 1st, 2026 that Education Commissioner Mike Morath had supported Alpha leaders' bid to open a Texas charter school using the same AI technology. > he had supported Alpha leaders’ bid to open a charter school in Texas that would use the same technology Source (journalism): https://www.texastribune.org/2026/10/01/alpha-school-ai-texas-public-schools-mike-morath/ ### The Tribune reports the State Board of Education, which has the final say on charter decisions, voted the Alpha leaders' charter bid down 10 to 3. > Then the Texas State Board of Education, which has the final say on such charter decisions, voted it down 10 to 3. Source (journalism): https://www.texastribune.org/2026/10/01/alpha-school-ai-texas-public-schools-mike-morath/ ### According to the Tribune, board members cited concerns about AI teaching, student screen time and the test score gains Alpha leaders presented. > Board members cited concerns about the company’s use of AI to teach and students’ screen time, as well as lingering questions about the drastic student test improvements Alpha leaders presented. Source (journalism): https://www.texastribune.org/2026/10/01/alpha-school-ai-texas-public-schools-mike-morath/ ### On June 27th, 2025, the Texas State Board of Education voted on a recommendation to veto the proposed Valenta Academy charter school in Bastrop. > that they veto the proposed Generation 30 Subchapter D Open- Enrollment Charter School Valenta Academy (Bastrop) as recommended by the Commissioner. Source (primary_official): https://sboe.texas.gov/state-board-of-education/sboe-meetings/06-27-2025-sboemins.pdf ### The State Board of Education's minutes record the Valenta Academy veto recommendation as adopted on a roll call vote of 10-3-1. > which was adopted 10-3-1 Source (primary_official): https://sboe.texas.gov/state-board-of-education/sboe-meetings/06-27-2025-sboemins.pdf ### Two days earlier, on June 25th, 2025, the board's Committee of the Full Board voted 10-3 for a motion to recommend vetoing the Valenta Academy charter. > The motion was adopted 10-3. Source (primary_official): https://sboe.texas.gov/state-board-of-education/sboe-meetings/2025-06-25-cofbmins-final.pdf ### Community Impact reported in July 2025 that Valenta Academy's programming was proposed to follow a two-hour learning model. > Programming at Valenta Academy was proposed to be based on the two-hour learning model Source (journalism): https://communityimpact.com/bastrop-cedar-creek/education/valenta-academy-will-not-open-in-bastrop-after-tea-veto/ ### A Valenta Academy spokesperson told Community Impact in December 2024 that the school would use adaptive artificial intelligence for self-driven, accelerated learning. > utilizes adaptive artificial intelligence (AI) to enable a self-driven, accelerated learning experience for students Source (journalism): https://communityimpact.com/bastrop-cedar-creek/education/valenta-academy-to-bring-new-way-of-learning-to-bastrop-children/ ### In Alpha's full model, AI teaches all students their basic subjects in two hours a day, and human teachers called guides focus on motivation and emotional support. > using it to teach all students basic subjects in two hours a day while the human teachers, which Alpha calls guides, focus on motivation and emotional support Source (journalism): https://www.texastribune.org/2026/10/01/alpha-school-ai-texas-public-schools-mike-morath/ ### The Tribune reports that at Texas Preparatory School in Austin, an existing Texas school that used the AI program, TEA's own test data showed just 21% of students passed, and TEA then rated the charter F for a third year running. > Last year, state test scores compiled by his agency showed just 21% of students passed. The TEA then gave the charter its third consecutive F rating Source (journalism): https://www.texastribune.org/2026/10/01/alpha-school-ai-texas-public-schools-mike-morath/ ### State Board of Education vice chair Pam Little, a Republican who voted against the charter, told the Tribune she wants no AI in schools, especially in the lower grades. > I don’t want anything AI in our schools, especially at the lower grades Source (journalism): https://www.texastribune.org/2026/10/01/alpha-school-ai-texas-public-schools-mike-morath/ ### Board member Gustavo Reveles, a Democrat who voted against the charter, said TEA's help bringing the tool into public schools raises a red flag about getting around the board's concern. > It certainly raises a red flag that perhaps there’s ways to circumvent that concern Source (journalism): https://www.texastribune.org/2026/10/01/alpha-school-ai-texas-public-schools-mike-morath/ ### Andrew Mahaleris, Governor Greg Abbott's press secretary, said in a statement that any classroom tool must keep teachers central, limit screen time and show results. > Any tool a district deploys must keep teachers at the center of the classroom, limit unnecessary screen time, and prove results for students. Source (journalism): https://www.texastribune.org/2026/10/01/alpha-school-ai-texas-public-schools-mike-morath/ ### The Tribune says the full extent of TEA's involvement and the number of districts using the program are still unknown, and TEA is still fighting release of more communications. > remains unclear. The TEA has not responded to questions about its efforts for months, initially failed to provide some of Morath’s emails in response to public information requests and continues fighting the release of additional communications Source (journalism): https://www.texastribune.org/2026/10/01/alpha-school-ai-texas-public-schools-mike-morath/ --- # UT REAL Health AI funds 12 pilot projects that put AI into UT System hospitals and medical schools The University of Texas Research, Engineering, and Application Laboratory for Healthcare Artificial Intelligence announced funding for 12 pilot projects. The laboratory is known as UT REAL Health AI and was launched by the UT System in 2025. The pilots were chosen from 120 systemwide submissions. The page says the awards total more than $3.6 million and that three moonshot projects each received up to $500,000. Among them is an AI clinical assistant for emergency triage and transfer decisions at seven UT hospital sites. Others are a smartphone app that listens for fetal movements, referral triage at UTMB Galveston and a warning system against wrong tooth extraction at UTHealth Houston. One project is AI no-show reduction. The page credits it with saving more than 6,500 appointments and $900,000 in revenue at UTHealth Houston, and it is set to expand to UT Health San Antonio. The page cites no measurement or audit behind those results. The page carries no announcement date. - Topic: health-and-education - Decided by: The University of Texas System (state-agency) - Where: Bexar, Travis, Dallas, Galveston, Harris, Smith, Hidalgo - Statistical areas: - Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX - Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX - Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX - McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX - San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX - Tyler, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://www.utsystem.edu/sites/ut-real-health-ai - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-10-05 · Admitted on the UT System's own list of funded pilots. The awards are made, and the one result the page reports is the no-show project's saving at UTHealth Houston, stated without a cited measurement. - 2026-10-08 · The UT System's list of funded health AI pilots is unchanged, and the no-show project is still the one result it reports. - 2026-10-11 · The UT System's list of funded health AI pilots is unchanged. - 2026-10-15 · The UT System's list of funded health AI pilots is unchanged. - 2026-10-18 · The UT System's list of funded health AI pilots is the same as before. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · UT REAL Health AI's pilot projects in UT System hospitals and medical schools are still funded. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### UT REAL Health AI is the UT System's Research, Engineering, and Application Laboratory for Healthcare Artificial Intelligence. > The University of Texas Research, Engineering, and Application Laboratory for Healthcare Artificial Intelligence (UT REAL Health AI) Source (primary_official): https://www.utsystem.edu/sites/ut-real-health-ai/workgroups/pilot-program-phase-i ### The UT System launched the laboratory in 2025 after legislative approval and dedicated funding. > In 2025, the University of Texas System received legislative approval and dedicated funding to launch UT REAL Health AI, a systemwide initiative to responsibly accelerate artificial intelligence in health. Source (primary_official): https://www.utsystem.edu/sites/ut-real-health-ai ### The laboratory announced funding for 12 pilot projects. > today announced funding for 12 pilot projects designed to advance the use of AI in healthcare across the UT System Source (primary_official): https://www.utsystem.edu/sites/ut-real-health-ai/workgroups/pilot-program-phase-i ### The pilots were chosen from 120 systemwide submissions. > Selected through a rigorous two-phase review of 120 systemwide submissions Source (primary_official): https://www.utsystem.edu/sites/ut-real-health-ai/workgroups/pilot-program-phase-i ### The awards total more than $3.6 million. > Competitive awards totaling more than $3.6 million support AI innovation in emergency care, patient safety, clinical efficiency, and medical education across eleven UT institutions. Source (primary_official): https://www.utsystem.edu/sites/ut-real-health-ai/workgroups/pilot-program-phase-i ### Three moonshot projects each received up to $500,000. > Three moonshot projects each received up to $500,000 to pursue transformative clinical AI. Source (primary_official): https://www.utsystem.edu/sites/ut-real-health-ai/workgroups/pilot-program-phase-i ### A UT San Antonio pilot puts an AI clinical assistant across seven UT hospital sites for emergency triage and transfer decisions. > deploys "Leah," an AI clinical assistant trained on more than 400,000 trauma cases, across seven UT hospital sites to optimize emergency triage and transfer decisions Source (primary_official): https://www.utsystem.edu/sites/ut-real-health-ai/workgroups/pilot-program-phase-i ### A UT Austin pilot is a smartphone app that listens for fetal movements. > is a smartphone app that uses AI-powered acoustic analysis to detect fetal movements with 88% accuracy Source (primary_official): https://www.utsystem.edu/sites/ut-real-health-ai/workgroups/pilot-program-phase-i ### UTMB Galveston is deploying AI referral triage. > At UTMB Galveston, Dr. Salim Hayek is deploying AI Referral Triage to Reduce Low-Value Care and Improve Patient Access Source (primary_official): https://www.utsystem.edu/sites/ut-real-health-ai/workgroups/pilot-program-phase-i ### A UTHealth Houston pilot warns against wrong tooth extraction. > Early Warning System to Predict Wrong-Tooth Extraction (WTE) in Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery (Predict-WTE) led by Dr. Sayali Tungare at UTHealth Houston Source (primary_official): https://www.utsystem.edu/sites/ut-real-health-ai/workgroups/pilot-program-phase-i ### A UT Tyler pilot uses AI to expand retinal screening. > led by Dr. Andrea Cooley at UT Tyler, uses artificial intelligence to expand access to retinal screening and early disease detecting at scale Source (primary_official): https://www.utsystem.edu/sites/ut-real-health-ai/workgroups/pilot-program-phase-i ### The page credits the no-show project with saving more than 6,500 appointments and $900,000 in revenue at UTHealth Houston. > that has already saved more than 6,500 appointments and $900,000 in revenue at UTHealth Houston Source (primary_official): https://www.utsystem.edu/sites/ut-real-health-ai/workgroups/pilot-program-phase-i ### The no-show project is set to expand to UT Health San Antonio. > The project will now expand to UT Health San Antonio, where it is projected to recover 15,000 Source (primary_official): https://www.utsystem.edu/sites/ut-real-health-ai/workgroups/pilot-program-phase-i ### The laboratory's 2026 symposium is set for October 7th and 8th in Austin. > 2026 UT REAL Health AI Symposium - October 7-8, Austin, TX Source (primary_official): https://www.utsystem.edu/sites/ut-real-health-ai ### The awards involve UT Rio Grande Valley among the institutions the page names. > involve institutions including UTHealth Houston, UT Southwestern, UT Austin, UT San Antonio, UTMB Galveston, MD Anderson Cancer Center, UT Rio Grande Valley, and UT Tyler Source (primary_official): https://www.utsystem.edu/sites/ut-real-health-ai/workgroups/pilot-program-phase-i --- # ERCOT pauses energizing new large data centers and crypto mines until its audit is done ERCOT told its board that it has paused the energization of new large load data centers and crypto mining facilities. The pause covers sites of 75 MW or more that are not yet connected to the ERCOT system. It lasts until ERCOT completes the verification and audit and the community impact review it began after the Governor's August 3rd, 2026 directive. ERCOT says it will file both reports with the Public Utility Commission of Texas by December 10th, 2026. The update went to the ERCOT board meeting of September 14th and 15th, 2026. - Topic: data-centers - Decided by: Electric Reliability Council of Texas (state-agency) - Where: Statewide - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2026/09/11/14-Batch-Zero-Update.pdf - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-09-14 · hearing: Batch Zero update presented to the ERCOT board - 2026-12-10 · administrative deadline: ERCOT's verification report and community impact review report due at the commission ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-10-05 · Admitted on ERCOT's own board materials. The pause stands until the audit and the community impact review are done, and both reports are due at the commission by December 10th, 2026. - 2026-10-08 · ERCOT's board update still holds new large data centers and crypto mines off the grid until the audit and the community impact review are done. Both reports are still due at the commission on December 10th, 2026. - 2026-10-11 · ERCOT still holds new large data centers and crypto mines off the grid until its audit is done. - 2026-10-15 · ERCOT still holds new large data centers and crypto mines off the grid until the audit is done. - 2026-10-18 · ERCOT's board update still says new large data centers and crypto mines wait for energization until the audit is done. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · The grid operator's pause on energizing new large data centers and crypto mines is still in place until the audit ends. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### ERCOT has paused energizing new large load data centers and crypto mining facilities until the audit and community impact review are complete. > ERCOT has paused the energization of new Large Load data centers and crypto mining facilities until the completion of the verification and audit and community impact review. Source (primary_official): https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2026/09/11/14-Batch-Zero-Update.pdf ### The pause applies to facilities of 75 MW or more. > Paused approvals to energize data centers or virtual currency mining facilities (crypto facilities) that are 75 MW or greater. Source (primary_official): https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2026/09/11/14-Batch-Zero-Update.pdf ### The pause reaches only facilities not yet connected. > Energization pause impacts Large Load data centers and crypto facilities not yet connected to the ERCOT system. Source (primary_official): https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2026/09/11/14-Batch-Zero-Update.pdf ### ERCOT acted on the Governor's August 3rd, 2026 directive. > ERCOT took immediate actions to address Governor Abbott's August 3, 2026 directive related to the interconnection of data centers and crypto mining loads. Source (primary_official): https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2026/09/11/14-Batch-Zero-Update.pdf ### The verification report is due at the commission by December 10th, 2026. > ERCOT will file the Batch Zero Eligibility Verification Report with the Commission by December 10, 2026. Source (primary_official): https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2026/09/11/14-Batch-Zero-Update.pdf ### The community impact review report is due the same day. > ERCOT will file the Community Impact Review Report with the Commission by December 10, 2026. Source (primary_official): https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2026/09/11/14-Batch-Zero-Update.pdf ### The update went to the board meeting of September 14th and 15th, 2026. > Board of Directors Meeting September 14-15, 2026 Source (primary_official): https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2026/09/11/14-Batch-Zero-Update.pdf --- # Taylor City Council approves an agreement to annex a 664 acre data center campus under written water, setback and noise terms The City of Taylor has a proposed development agreement with Big Watt Digital and PowerHouse Data Centers for Taylor Technology Campus. The 664 acre site was known as Project Mustang and includes data centers and on site power generation. The City Council approved the agreement 5 to 0 at its meeting on October 8th, 2026. The developers had withdrawn their annexation and zoning application with the city. The city's notice says the land would otherwise stay in unincorporated Williamson County, which has no zoning authority. Under the agreement the site is annexed and held to written terms. Cooling is a closed loop filled with reclaimed water, and potable water is barred from cooling except in circumstances the agreement names. Buildings sit at least 300 feet from the north, east and west lines. Data centers, generation and batteries sit at least 700 feet from the south line. Noise may not exceed the greater of 65 dBA or the level measured before construction. The developers commit $28.2 million for community investments and nonprofit support and ask for no tax abatement. Air quality stays with TCEQ. - Topic: data-centers - Decided by: Taylor City Council (city) - Where: Williamson - Statistical areas: - Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Closed - Take part: https://www.taylortx.gov/1416/Taylor-Technology-Campus - Last checked: 2026-10-21 ## Dates - 2026-10-02 · filed: The city posts its notice of the proposed development agreement - 2026-10-08 · hearing: City Council meeting, vote on the development agreement - 2026-10-08 · decided: The City Council approves the development agreement 5 to 0 ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-10-06 · Admitted on the city's own notice. The council has not voted yet. The agreement's full text was not found posted beside the notice. - 2026-10-07 · The council has not voted yet. The city's page still sets out the proposed terms beside what applies without them. - 2026-10-08 · Taylor's council has not voted yet. The city's page still lays out the proposed terms beside the rules that apply without them. - 2026-10-11 · The council approved the agreement to annex the campus 5 to 0 on October 8th, under the written terms. The city's own campus page had not yet posted the result. - 2026-10-15 · CBS Austin's account of the council's vote still reads as cited. The city's own news post no longer answers at its address, so its wording is unconfirmed. - 2026-10-18 · CBS Austin's account of the council approving the annexation agreement still reads as cited. The city's own post did not answer, so its wording is unconfirmed. - 2026-10-21 · CBS Austin's account of the council approving the annexation agreement still reads as cited. The city's own news post now leads to a missing page, so its wording is unconfirmed. - 2026-10-24 · Taylor's annexation agreement for the data center campus is unconfirmed today, since the city's notice no longer answers at its old address. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The city is considering a proposed agreement for annexation and development of a data center campus with on site power. > The City of Taylor is considering a proposed agreement with Big Watt Digital and PowerHouse Data Centers to move forward with annexation and development for Taylor Technology Campus, formerly known as Project Mustang, a 664-acre project that includes data center facilities and on-site power generation. Source (primary_official): https://www.taylortx.gov/m/newsflash/Home/Detail/2113 ### The council votes on the agreement on October 8th. > The proposed agreement will still go before City Council for a vote at the Oct. 8 City Council meeting. Source (primary_official): https://www.taylortx.gov/m/newsflash/Home/Detail/2113 ### The developers withdrew their earlier application before the agreement was reached. > This comes after the developers withdrew their annexation and zoning application with the City last month. Source (primary_official): https://www.taylortx.gov/m/newsflash/Home/Detail/2113 ### Without the agreement the land stays under county rules with no zoning. > Without the development agreement, the project would have remained in unincorporated Williamson County, which has no zoning authority and minimal development regulations. Source (primary_official): https://www.taylortx.gov/m/newsflash/Home/Detail/2113 ### The city says it would otherwise have no authority over the project. > The City of Taylor would have had no authority over any aspect of the project. Source (primary_official): https://www.taylortx.gov/m/newsflash/Home/Detail/2113 ### Cooling would be a closed loop filled with reclaimed water. > The site will be designed and constructed with a closed loop cooling system utilizing reclaimed water with an initial fill volume of 1.575 million gallons for the entire site. Source (primary_official): https://www.taylortx.gov/m/newsflash/Home/Detail/2113 ### Potable water is barred from cooling except in circumstances the agreement names. > No potable water will be authorized for use in filling the HVAC system or any need for evaporative cooling purposes unless a circumstance outlined in the agreement allows Source (primary_official): https://www.taylortx.gov/m/newsflash/Home/Detail/2113 ### The developers would withdraw their state wastewater discharge permit application. > As part of the investments into the City’s wastewater system, the developers will withdraw their TCEQ wastewater discharge permit application. Source (primary_official): https://www.taylortx.gov/m/newsflash/Home/Detail/2113 ### Buildings sit back from the north, east and west lines. > Buildings will be set back at least 300 feet from the north, east and west property lines. Source (primary_official): https://www.taylortx.gov/m/newsflash/Home/Detail/2113 ### Along the south line, data centers, generation and batteries sit farther back than accessory structures. > Along the south property line, data centers, power generation facilities and battery storage will be at least 700 feet from the property line, while accessory structures will be at least 500 feet away. Source (primary_official): https://www.taylortx.gov/m/newsflash/Home/Detail/2113 ### A landscaped buffer runs along the south line near FM 112. > A permanent landscaped buffer of at least 400 feet will also be provided along the south property line near FM 112. Source (primary_official): https://www.taylortx.gov/m/newsflash/Home/Detail/2113 ### The buffer carries earthen berms. > The buffer will include landscaped areas and earthen berms at least 6 feet high to provide additional screening. Source (primary_official): https://www.taylortx.gov/m/newsflash/Home/Detail/2113 ### Air quality stays with the state agency. > Air quality will be enforced by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). Source (primary_official): https://www.taylortx.gov/m/newsflash/Home/Detail/2113 ### Noise is capped at the greater of 65 dBA or the level before development. > Noise generated from the development shall not exceed the greater of either 65 dBA or the pre-development level. Source (primary_official): https://www.taylortx.gov/m/newsflash/Home/Detail/2113 ### Backup generators may be tested on weekday working hours only. > On-site emergency back-up generators are subject to monthly testing during weekdays between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Source (primary_official): https://www.taylortx.gov/m/newsflash/Home/Detail/2113 ### The developers commit $28.2 million for community investments and nonprofit support. > In addition to these binding regulations, the developers are committing $28.2 million for community investments and nonprofit support Source (primary_official): https://www.taylortx.gov/m/newsflash/Home/Detail/2113 ### The city projects tax revenue from the project. > The projected $1.38 billion in gross tax revenue generated by the project over 20 years could also provide the City with additional resources to invest in critical community priorities Source (primary_official): https://www.taylortx.gov/m/newsflash/Home/Detail/2113 ### The developers ask for no tax abatement. > The developers are not asking for any tax abatements with this request for development agreement approval. Source (primary_official): https://www.taylortx.gov/m/newsflash/Home/Detail/2113 ### The Taylor City Council approved the agreement to annex the data center campus by a vote of 5 to 0. > A major new data center project east of Taylor is moving forward after the City Council unanimously approved an agreement to annex the 664-acre development following months of heated debate and negotiations. The proposed agreement passed 5-0. Source (journalism): https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/taylor-city-council-greenlights-data-center-after-months-of-debate --- # Saronic breaks ground at the Port of Brownsville on Port Alpha, a shipyard built to make autonomous and crewed ships, on a Cameron County abatement Saronic Technologies broke ground on September 30th on Port Alpha. It is a shipyard at the Port of Brownsville that the company says will build autonomous and crewed ships. Navy landing craft are among the first. The company calls the yard itself software defined. Its release states the size of the site and the investment. It also gives the first phase's quay and build positions and the longest vessel the yard can build. In June the Cameron County Commissioners Court approved a property tax abatement for the project. The Texas Tribune reported it at 95 percent over 20 years. The agreement carries a local hiring requirement and shrinks if the jobs fall short. Opponents told the court it would take money from public schools. The county's own agenda for that vote is a scanned file, so the abatement's terms here rest on the Tribune's account. - Topic: defense-and-federal - Decided by: Cameron County Commissioners Court (county) - Where: Cameron - Statistical areas: - Brownsville-Harlingen, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://www.cameroncountytx.gov/commissioners-court-agendas/ - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-09-30 · effective: Groundbreaking at the Port of Brownsville, the date of Saronic's release ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-10-07 · Admitted to the record on Saronic's own release of the groundbreaking. The abatement Cameron County approved in June rests on the Tribune's account, because the county's agenda is a scanned file. - 2026-10-10 · Saronic's account of breaking ground on Port Alpha in Brownsville reads as published. - 2026-10-15 · Saronic's account of breaking ground on Port Alpha in Brownsville reads as published. - 2026-10-18 · Saronic's account of breaking ground on Port Alpha at the Port of Brownsville reads as published. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · Saronic's Port Alpha shipyard at the Port of Brownsville is still under construction on the Cameron County abatement. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### Saronic announced the groundbreaking of its shipyard, Port Alpha, on September 30th. > Saronic today announced the groundbreaking of Port Alpha, a next-generation American shipyard built to restore the nation's maritime industrial capacity. Source (primary_corporate): https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/saronic-breaks-ground-on-port-alpha-a-new-model-for-american-shipbuilding-302894975.html ### The release gives the site's size at the Port of Brownsville, its room to expand and the private investment. > Situated on 835 acres at the Port of Brownsville with the option to expand to nearly 4,400 acres, Port Alpha represents a private capital investment of more than $3 billion. Source (primary_corporate): https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/saronic-breaks-ground-on-port-alpha-a-new-model-for-american-shipbuilding-302894975.html ### The shipyard is meant to build autonomous and crewed ships. The company expects up to ten thousand direct jobs. > The shipyard, which will be capable of building both autonomous and manned ships, is expected to generate up to 10,000 direct jobs Source (primary_corporate): https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/saronic-breaks-ground-on-port-alpha-a-new-model-for-american-shipbuilding-302894975.html ### Saronic describes the yard itself as software defined. It is built to deliver autonomous and crewed ships. > Saronic is building a clean-sheet, software-defined facility designed from the ground up to deliver autonomous, autonomy-capable, and manned ships at speed and scale. Source (primary_corporate): https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/saronic-breaks-ground-on-port-alpha-a-new-model-for-american-shipbuilding-302894975.html ### The release states the longest vessel the yard can build at first and after expansion. > Port Alpha will initially be capable of producing vessels up to 850 feet, while future site expansion could support production of vessels over 1,200 Source (primary_corporate): https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/saronic-breaks-ground-on-port-alpha-a-new-model-for-american-shipbuilding-302894975.html ### The release sets out the first phase's production space and its deepwater quay. > At initial operations, Port Alpha will encompass 1.2 million square feet of enclosed production space within a 2.5-million-square-foot production activity area, spread across 8 to 10 dedicated production buildings and served by more than 2,500 feet of deepwater quay. Source (primary_corporate): https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/saronic-breaks-ground-on-port-alpha-a-new-model-for-american-shipbuilding-302894975.html ### The first phase has two to four build positions for final ship erection. > Two to four build positions will handle final ship erection Source (primary_corporate): https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/saronic-breaks-ground-on-port-alpha-a-new-model-for-american-shipbuilding-302894975.html ### The first phase builds autonomous and crewed ships. Navy landing craft are among them. > This first phase will focus on building autonomous, autonomy-capable, and manned ships, including Landing Craft Utility (LCU) vessels for the U.S. Navy. Source (primary_corporate): https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/saronic-breaks-ground-on-port-alpha-a-new-model-for-american-shipbuilding-302894975.html ### The release states the yard's annual capacity at opening. > At opening, Port Alpha will introduce an initial 150,000 gross tons of annual shipbuilding capacity Source (primary_corporate): https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/saronic-breaks-ground-on-port-alpha-a-new-model-for-american-shipbuilding-302894975.html ### Saronic names the state and Cameron County among its partners on training. > Saronic is working with the State of Texas, Cameron County, and regional educational institutions on engineering pipelines Source (primary_corporate): https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/saronic-breaks-ground-on-port-alpha-a-new-model-for-american-shipbuilding-302894975.html ### In June the Cameron County Commissioners Court approved a tax break for Saronic before the company had chosen the site. The Tribune reported it. > The Cameron County commissioners court approved a $211 million tax break for Saronic Technologies in hopes that the company will select the Port of Brownsville for its $3.2 billion naval shipyard called Port Alpha. Source (journalism): https://www.texastribune.org/2026/06/18/tax-abatement-saronic-brownsville-texas/ ### The Tribune reports the abatement's rate and term. > The tax break would come in the form of a 95% tax abatement agreement over 20 years. Source (journalism): https://www.texastribune.org/2026/06/18/tax-abatement-saronic-brownsville-texas/ ### The Tribune reports the agreement's local hiring requirement. > As part of the tax abatement agreement, 35% of their full-time workforce is required to be local residents. Source (journalism): https://www.texastribune.org/2026/06/18/tax-abatement-saronic-brownsville-texas/ ### The Tribune reports that the abatement shrinks if the jobs fall short. > If Saronic falls short of job projections, the tax abatement would decrease. Source (journalism): https://www.texastribune.org/2026/06/18/tax-abatement-saronic-brownsville-texas/ ### Opponents told the court the abatement would take money from public schools. The Tribune reported it. > Opponents also said the abatement would take away money from public schools. Source (journalism): https://www.texastribune.org/2026/06/18/tax-abatement-saronic-brownsville-texas/ --- # TxDOT starts Project Nexus, a three year state test of next generation aircraft whose first flights carry no passengers The Texas Department of Transportation launched the first phase of Project Nexus on September 10th at Fort Worth Alliance Airport. It is the state's part of a federal pilot program for electric vertical takeoff and landing aircraft. The first phase tests across the state with helicopters and fixed wing planes, and those flights carry no passengers. They collect data and validate routes. Later phases move medical supplies and organs between rural facilities and medical centers in Austin and San Antonio, and the last phase carries passengers across the Texas triangle. At the kickoff an invited company, Merlin, flew a Cessna Caravan to show software it says handles takeoff, landing and radio calls to air traffic control. That account of the demonstration is the company's own. - Topic: state-policy - Decided by: Texas Department of Transportation (state-agency) - Where: Statewide - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://www.txdot.gov/about/newsroom/statewide/air-taxi-testing-taking-flight-in-texas.html - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-09-10 · effective: First phase launched at Fort Worth Alliance Airport, the date of TxDOT's release ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-10-08 · Admitted to the record on TxDOT's own release of the first phase. The account of the autonomous flight shown at the kickoff is Merlin's own. - 2026-10-11 · TxDOT's release on the first phase of Project Nexus still reads as published. - 2026-10-15 · TxDOT's release on the first phase of Project Nexus reads as published. - 2026-10-18 · TxDOT's release on the first phase of Project Nexus still says the first flights carry no passengers. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · TxDOT's Project Nexus test still runs without passengers on its flights. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### TxDOT says it is launching the first phase of Project Nexus. > TxDOT is launching the first phase of Project Nexus. Source (primary_official): https://www.txdot.gov/about/newsroom/statewide/air-taxi-testing-taking-flight-in-texas.html ### The federal government picked the state's proposal for the electric aircraft pilot program in March. > U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy and the Federal Aviation Administration selected TxDOT’s proposal to be part of the new Electric Vertical Takeoff and Landing Integration Pilot Program back in March 2026. Source (primary_official): https://www.txdot.gov/about/newsroom/statewide/air-taxi-testing-taking-flight-in-texas.html ### The first phase flies conventional aircraft around the state. > This first phase will test across the state using traditional aircraft such as helicopters and fixed-wing planes. Source (primary_official): https://www.txdot.gov/about/newsroom/statewide/air-taxi-testing-taking-flight-in-texas.html ### The first flights carry no passengers. > These initial flights will not carry passengers and are designed to collect data, validate routes and support the safe development of future advanced air mobility operations. Source (primary_official): https://www.txdot.gov/about/newsroom/statewide/air-taxi-testing-taking-flight-in-texas.html ### The pilot runs in phases over three years, with medical and cargo flights next. > The Texas pilot will advance in phases over the next three years. The next phases involve testing for medical and cargo logistics, such as transporting critical medical supplies or organs between rural facilities and urban medical centers in Austin and San Antonio. Source (primary_official): https://www.txdot.gov/about/newsroom/statewide/air-taxi-testing-taking-flight-in-texas.html ### Passenger flights come last. > The final phase involves passengers in “air taxi” flights across the Texas triangle. Source (primary_official): https://www.txdot.gov/about/newsroom/statewide/air-taxi-testing-taking-flight-in-texas.html ### The launch took place at Fort Worth Alliance Airport, with an aircraft demonstration. > Duffy, Cruz, and TxDOT helped launch this first phase at Fort Worth Alliance Airport. Manufacturers and operators were also there to provide an aircraft demonstration. Source (primary_official): https://www.txdot.gov/about/newsroom/statewide/air-taxi-testing-taking-flight-in-texas.html ### Merlin says it demonstrated autonomous takeoff and landing and AI radio calls to air traffic control at the kickoff. > TxDOT invited Merlin to the event as a supporting participant, enabling Merlin to demonstrate core capabilities of its AI-powered autonomy platform, the Merlin Pilot™, including autonomous takeoff and landing, AI-powered Air Traffic Control communications, and dynamic autonomous in-flight re-planning and threat avoidance. Source (primary_corporate): https://finviz.com/news/390988/merlin-demonstrates-autonomous-flight-capabilities-at-texas-department-of-transportation-project-nexus-eipp-kickoff-event ### The aircraft at the demonstration was a Cessna Caravan. > Merlin Cessna Caravan at Alliance Airport Source (primary_corporate): https://finviz.com/news/390988/merlin-demonstrates-autonomous-flight-capabilities-at-texas-department-of-transportation-project-nexus-eipp-kickoff-event ### The company's chief executive narrated the demonstration. > The demonstration, narrated by CEO and founder, Matt George, showcased how the Merlin Pilot can safely and effectively perform responsibilities traditionally managed by human pilots Source (primary_corporate): https://finviz.com/news/390988/merlin-demonstrates-autonomous-flight-capabilities-at-texas-department-of-transportation-project-nexus-eipp-kickoff-event --- # Volvo and Waabi start hauling a customer's freight between Dallas and Houston on autonomous trucks, with an observer in the driver's seat Volvo Autonomous Solutions and Waabi announced on October 5th the start of autonomous operations for Warp, a freight network, in Texas. Volvo trucks running Waabi's driving system now carry freight to third party facilities along the Dallas to Houston corridor. It is the first customer operation of the two companies' partnership. The release says the hauls run with an observer in the driver's seat. It reports no truck count or mileage. - Topic: state-policy - Decided by: Volvo Autonomous Solutions and Waabi (company) - Where: Dallas, Harris - Statistical areas: - Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX - Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://www.txdmv.gov/about-us/txdmv-board-meetings - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-10-05 · effective: Customer operations announced, the date of the release ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-10-08 · Admitted to the record on Volvo Group's own release of the first customer operation. - 2026-10-11 · Volvo's release on the first customer hauls still reads as published, with an observer in the driver's seat. - 2026-10-15 · Volvo's account of the first customer hauls still has an observer in the driver's seat. - 2026-10-18 · Volvo's account of the Dallas to Houston hauls still has an observer in the driver's seat. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · Volvo and Waabi still haul freight between Dallas and Houston with an observer in the driver's seat. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The two companies announced autonomous operation for Warp in Texas, their partnership's first customer. > Volvo Autonomous Solutions (V.A.S.) and Waabi today announced the start of autonomous operation for Warp in Texas, the first customer operation in the Volvo-Waabi partnership. Source (primary_corporate): https://www.volvogroup.com/en/news-and-media/news/2026/oct/volvo-and-waabi-kick-off-customer-operations-in-texas--starting-with-warp-tm-.html ### The trucks carry freight to third party facilities along the Dallas to Houston corridor. > The Volvo VNL Autonomous powered by the Waabi Driver is now transporting freight directly to third-party facilities along the Dallas–Houston corridor. Source (primary_corporate): https://www.volvogroup.com/en/news-and-media/news/2026/oct/volvo-and-waabi-kick-off-customer-operations-in-texas--starting-with-warp-tm-.html ### The release says the hauls run with an observer in the driver's seat. > Currently autonomous hauls are run with an observer in the driver’s seat. Source (primary_corporate): https://www.volvogroup.com/en/news-and-media/news/2026/oct/volvo-and-waabi-kick-off-customer-operations-in-texas--starting-with-warp-tm-.html --- # West Texas A&M wins a USDA grant to build a research feedlot near Canyon that will test feeding, health and handling with AI powered methods The U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Institute of Food and Agriculture awarded West Texas A&M University a grant to build a beef cattle research facility. The university calls it the largest federal award in its history. A dollar for dollar match from the A&M System and other sources completes the project. The plans call for a precision cattle handling facility, a veterinary hospital, a feed and production center and a metabolism center. The release says feeding, health and handling techniques there can be evaluated with traditional and AI powered approaches. It names no AI tool and reports no result yet. - Topic: research-and-science - Decided by: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture (federal) - Where: Randall - Statistical areas: - Amarillo, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://news.tamus.edu/stories/wt-to-build-beef-cattle-research-facility-with-9-75-million-usda-grant/ - Last checked: 2026-10-21 ## Dates - 2026-10-07 · effective: Grant announced, the date of the release ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-10-08 · Admitted to the record on the A&M System's own release of the grant. The AI powered methods are a stated plan, and no result is reported. - 2026-10-11 · The A&M System's release on the feedlot grant is unchanged. The AI methods are still a stated plan. - 2026-10-15 · The A&M System's release on the feedlot grant is unchanged, its AI methods still a plan. - 2026-10-18 · The A&M System's release on the Canyon feedlot grant reads as before, its AI methods still a plan. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · The research feedlot near Canyon is unconfirmed today, since the system's story no longer answers at its old address. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The university received a grant from the Department of Agriculture, the largest federal award in its history. > West Texas A&M University has received a $9.75 million grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture—the largest federal award in University history—to fund what promises to be the most advanced cattle feedlot research facility in the world. Source (primary_official): https://news.tamus.edu/stories/wt-to-build-beef-cattle-research-facility-with-9-75-million-usda-grant/ ### The USDA's food and agriculture institute made the award under its Research Facilities Act Program. > The USDA’s National Institute for Food and Agriculture awarded the grant for a center for beef cattle research and innovation through its Research Facilities Act Program. Source (primary_official): https://news.tamus.edu/stories/wt-to-build-beef-cattle-research-facility-with-9-75-million-usda-grant/ ### A required match brings the project total higher. > A required dollar-for-dollar match—with $4.875 million from The Texas A&M University System and another $4.875 million from other sources—brings the project total to $19.5 million. Source (primary_official): https://news.tamus.edu/stories/wt-to-build-beef-cattle-research-facility-with-9-75-million-usda-grant/ ### The facility will test feeding, health and handling with traditional and AI powered approaches. > New feeding, health and handling techniques can be evaluated with traditional and artificial intelligence-powered approaches that are designed to increase beef production efficiency and advance feedlot management practices. Source (primary_official): https://news.tamus.edu/stories/wt-to-build-beef-cattle-research-facility-with-9-75-million-usda-grant/ ### The plans name four parts of the research feedlot. > Plans call for the research feedlot to include a precision beef cattle handling facility, a veterinary care and research hospital, an advanced technology feed and production center, and a metabolism and physiology center. Source (primary_official): https://news.tamus.edu/stories/wt-to-build-beef-cattle-research-facility-with-9-75-million-usda-grant/ ### The research feedlot is being built near WT's Nance Ranch. > The research feedlot and education facility, which are being constructed southwest of the existing WT feedlot near Nance Ranch, further solidifies WT’s classification as a Research University by the Carnegie Foundation. Source (primary_official): https://news.tamus.edu/stories/wt-to-build-beef-cattle-research-facility-with-9-75-million-usda-grant/ ### Nance Ranch lies about seven miles east of Canyon. > The Nance Ranch , located about seven miles east of Canyon, consists of 2,393 acres including the headquarters. Source (primary_official): https://news.tamus.edu/stories/wt-to-build-beef-cattle-research-facility-with-9-75-million-usda-grant/ --- # UTMB puts OpenEvidence's AI answers inside its health record and says more than half of its clinicians use it The University of Texas Medical Branch announced on September 22nd that OpenEvidence, an AI platform that answers clinical questions with citations to medical literature, sits inside its electronic health record. UTMB says the integration went live in March and that clinicians sign in with their usual UTMB credentials. It says more than half of its clinicians now actively use the tool for clinical decision support. UTMB has hospitals on four campuses and more than 100 clinics across Southeast Texas. The release reports use and query growth but publishes no measure of whether the answers are accurate or whether patient care changed. UTMB says it will keep evaluating use and clinician experience. - Topic: health-and-education - Decided by: University of Texas Medical Branch (state-agency) - Where: Galveston - Statistical areas: - Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://www.utsystem.edu/board-of-regents/meetings - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-09-22 · filed: UTMB and OpenEvidence announce the collaboration, the date of the release ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-10-09 · Admitted to the record on UTMB's own release announcing the OpenEvidence integration. - 2026-10-12 · UTMB still describes OpenEvidence running inside its health record for its clinicians. - 2026-10-15 · UTMB still describes OpenEvidence running inside its health record. - 2026-10-18 · UTMB still describes OpenEvidence running inside its health record. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · UTMB still runs OpenEvidence inside its health record and still reports wide clinician use. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### UTMB and OpenEvidence announced a collaboration bringing evidence based AI into clinicians' workflows inside the electronic health record. > The University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) and OpenEvidence today announced a collaboration that brings evidence-based artificial intelligence directly into clinicians’ everyday workflows, giving UTMB physicians and other clinical users secure access to cited medical evidence from within the electronic health record. Source (primary_official): https://www.utmb.edu/utmb/news-article/utmb-news/2026/09/22/utmb-collaborates-with-openevidence-to-integrate-ai-platform-directly-into-clinical-workflows ### The integration went live at UTMB in March. > The integration, which went live at UTMB in March, was developed to give clinicians access to AI-enabled information resources within existing clinical workflows. Source (primary_official): https://www.utmb.edu/utmb/news-article/utmb-news/2026/09/22/utmb-collaborates-with-openevidence-to-integrate-ai-platform-directly-into-clinical-workflows ### Clinicians sign in with their standard UTMB credentials. > Clinicians access the platform using their standard UTMB enterprise credentials. Source (primary_official): https://www.utmb.edu/utmb/news-article/utmb-news/2026/09/22/utmb-collaborates-with-openevidence-to-integrate-ai-platform-directly-into-clinical-workflows ### Clinicians ask questions in natural language and get answers with citations. > Once authenticated, clinicians can ask clinical questions in natural language and receive responses that include citations to medical literature, clinical guidelines, and other authoritative sources. Source (primary_official): https://www.utmb.edu/utmb/news-article/utmb-news/2026/09/22/utmb-collaborates-with-openevidence-to-integrate-ai-platform-directly-into-clinical-workflows ### UTMB says more than half of its clinicians actively use OpenEvidence. > Today, more than half of UTMB clinicians actively use OpenEvidence for clinical decision support. Source (primary_official): https://www.utmb.edu/utmb/news-article/utmb-news/2026/09/22/utmb-collaborates-with-openevidence-to-integrate-ai-platform-directly-into-clinical-workflows ### UTMB has hospitals on four campuses and more than 100 clinics across Southeast Texas. > With hospitals located on four campuses in addition to more than 100 clinics across Southeast Texas, the geographic reach of UTMB makes rapid access to current medical knowledge particularly valuable. Source (primary_official): https://www.utmb.edu/utmb/news-article/utmb-news/2026/09/22/utmb-collaborates-with-openevidence-to-integrate-ai-platform-directly-into-clinical-workflows ### UTMB says it will keep evaluating use, clinician experience and how evidence is delivered. > As adoption grows, UTMB will continue evaluating utilization, clinician experience, and opportunities to improve how evidence and clinical intelligence are delivered at the point of care. Source (primary_official): https://www.utmb.edu/utmb/news-article/utmb-news/2026/09/22/utmb-collaborates-with-openevidence-to-integrate-ai-platform-directly-into-clinical-workflows ### UTMB reports growth in clinicians using the tool and in queries since March. > Since the March launch, UTMB has seen strong growth in both the number of clinicians using OpenEvidence and the volume of clinical queries submitted through the platform. Source (primary_official): https://www.utmb.edu/utmb/news-article/utmb-news/2026/09/22/utmb-collaborates-with-openevidence-to-integrate-ai-platform-directly-into-clinical-workflows --- # Kodiak and Charger USA start hauling freight between Dallas and Laredo on autonomous trucks with a safety driver behind the wheel Kodiak AI and Charger USA announced on October 8th that trucks running the Kodiak Driver are hauling refrigerated and dry freight. The lane runs between Charger's terminals in Dallas and Laredo. The companies say their first delivery was on September 8th. A safety driver sits behind the wheel today, and the companies say they intend to go driverless once Kodiak completes its safety case. It is Kodiak's first route serving Laredo. No public body voted on it. - Topic: state-policy - Decided by: Kodiak AI and Charger USA (company) - Where: Dallas, Webb - Statistical areas: - Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX - Laredo, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://www.txdmv.gov/about-us/txdmv-board-meetings - Last checked: 2026-10-23 ## Dates - 2026-09-08 · effective: First delivery on the lane, as the release states - 2026-10-08 · filed: The companies announce the lane, the date of the release ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-10-09 · Admitted to the record on Kodiak's own release announcing the Dallas to Laredo lane. - 2026-10-16 · Kodiak's own copy of its October 8th release still says the Dallas to Laredo trucks run with a safety driver behind the wheel. The driverless switch still waits on Kodiak finishing its safety case. - 2026-10-20 · Kodiak and Charger USA's Dallas to Laredo trucks still run with a safety driver aboard, as the October 8th release says. No date for a driverless run on that lane has been named. - 2026-10-23 · The Dallas to Laredo trucks still carry a safety driver, as Kodiak's October 8th release says, and no driverless date for that lane has been named. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### Kodiak Driver trucks haul freight on the lane between Charger's terminals in Dallas and Laredo. > Through this collaboration, trucks equipped with the Kodiak Driver, Kodiak's autonomous driving system, are hauling refrigerated and dry freight for consumer packaged goods and food and beverage customers on the 435-mile lane between Charger’s terminals in Dallas and Laredo, Texas. Source (primary_corporate): https://kodiak.ai/news/kodiak-charger-usa-autonomous-trucking-dallas-laredo ### The companies say their first delivery was on September 8th. > Kodiak and Charger completed their first delivery on September 8, 2026. Source (primary_corporate): https://kodiak.ai/news/kodiak-charger-usa-autonomous-trucking-dallas-laredo ### A safety driver is behind the wheel today. > Today, the companies are operating with a safety driver behind the wheel. Source (primary_corporate): https://kodiak.ai/news/kodiak-charger-usa-autonomous-trucking-dallas-laredo ### The companies intend to go driverless once Kodiak completes its safety case. > The companies intend to transition the lane to driverless operations once Kodiak completes its safety case. Source (primary_corporate): https://kodiak.ai/news/kodiak-charger-usa-autonomous-trucking-dallas-laredo --- # UT REAL Health AI signs a systemwide agreement letting UT health institutions use Abridge's ambient note taking Abridge announced on October 8th an enterprise agreement with UT REAL Health AI, the University of Texas System's health AI initiative. The agreement gives UT health institutions a systemwide framework to use Abridge's clinician platform, which listens to visits and drafts notes, while each institution keeps its own decisions. Abridge says its pilot with UT's health systems has included clinicians at five locations. The adoption figures in the release are the vendor's own. It reports no measure of note accuracy or time saved, and states no price. - Topic: health-and-education - Decided by: The University of Texas System (state-agency) - Where: Statewide - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://www.utsystem.edu/board-of-regents/meetings - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-10-08 · effective: Agreement announced, the date of the release ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-10-09 · Admitted to the record on Abridge's own release of the systemwide agreement. - 2026-10-12 · The systemwide Abridge agreement for UT health institutions still stands as announced. - 2026-10-15 · The systemwide Abridge agreement for UT health institutions stands as announced. - 2026-10-18 · The systemwide agreement for Abridge's ambient note taking at UT health institutions stands as announced. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · UT REAL Health AI's systemwide agreement for Abridge's ambient note taking still stands. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### Abridge announced an enterprise agreement with UT REAL Health AI across the UT System. > Abridge today announced an enterprise-wide agreement with University of Texas REAL Health AI to expand access to Abridge’s clinician intelligence platform across the UT System. Source (primary_corporate): https://www.abridge.com/press-release/ut-health-enterprise-wide ### The framework lets institutions use Abridge while keeping their own decisions. > The agreement establishes a systemwide framework through which UT health institutions can access Abridge, while enabling local decision-making, innovation, real-world testing, and continued development of new clinical and operational use cases. Source (primary_corporate): https://www.abridge.com/press-release/ut-health-enterprise-wide ### The pilot with UT's health systems has included clinicians at five locations. > That same year, Abridge launched a pilot with UT’s Health Systems which has included clinicians at five geographic locations across outpatient, inpatient, and emergency department settings and more than 50 specialties. Source (primary_corporate): https://www.abridge.com/press-release/ut-health-enterprise-wide ### Abridge reports its own pilot growth figures. > Adoption has increased significantly, with the pilot growing 73% in recording clinicians and 80% in monthly notes over the last 12 months, contributing to the expansion of Abridge availability enterprise-wide. Source (primary_corporate): https://www.abridge.com/press-release/ut-health-enterprise-wide --- # Austin Community College drafts what it calls its first AI policy under a five rule framework and opens it to a town hall on October 12th Austin Community College says it is developing what it calls its first-ever artificial intelligence policy. The policy is to follow a framework the college calls TRUST, which two collegewide AI committees developed. Its five rules ask people to say where AI was used and to check what it produces. They also ask people to keep their own judgment, to use AI for honest work and to respect copyright. The college's AI resource site already links a PDF titled Acceptable Use of Artificial Intelligence Policy, marked for faculty and staff only. The new policy is not the college's first written word on the subject. The college has set three October events for faculty, staff, students and community members. A town hall at the Rio Grande Campus on October 12th will explore the policies in progress. A faculty convocation on academic integrity follows on October 16th at Eastview. A community seminar meets on October 22nd at Highland. The college says more than 79,000 students rely on it each year. The announcement names no date for adopting the policy and does not say who will vote on it. - Topic: health-and-education - Decided by: Austin Community College District (special-district) - Where: Travis - Statistical areas: - Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX - Status: pending - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://infohub.austincc.edu/blog/2026/10/09/help-shape-accs-ai-policy-development/ - Last checked: 2026-10-22 ## Dates - 2026-10-09 · filed: College announces it is developing an AI policy under the TRUST framework - 2026-10-12 · hearing: Faculty and Student AI Town Hall, 6:30 to 9 p.m., Rio Grande Campus - 2026-10-22 · hearing: Community seminar on intelligence and humanity, 6 to 9 p.m., Highland Campus ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-10-10 · Admitted to the record. The college's own announcement carries the five rules of its framework and the dates of its three October events. It names no date for adopting the policy. - 2026-10-11 · Austin Community College's announcement of the draft policy and its five rules is unchanged. - 2026-10-12 · Austin Community College's draft AI policy and its five rules are still open for comment. No final version has been adopted. - 2026-10-15 · Austin Community College's draft AI policy is still open for comment, with no final version adopted. - 2026-10-17 · The college's own post still describes the AI policy as in development under the TRUST framework, with no adopted version announced. - 2026-10-18 · The college's own page still describes its AI policy as in development, with no adopted version. - 2026-10-20 · The college's page still calls its AI policy a work in development under the five rule framework, and no adopted policy has been posted. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-10-22 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The college says it is developing an AI policy under a framework it calls TRUST, and will hold events in October to gather community feedback. > Austin Community College (ACC) is developing an artificial intelligence (AI) policy in alignment with the newly launched TRUST framework and will host a series of conversations and events in October to gather community feedback and build collective capacity to discuss AI and its impact on the College. Source (primary_official): https://infohub.austincc.edu/blog/2026/10/09/help-shape-accs-ai-policy-development/ ### The college describes the coming policy as its first-ever AI policy. > exploring how the framework can help shape the College’s first-ever AI policy Source (primary_official): https://infohub.austincc.edu/blog/2026/10/09/help-shape-accs-ai-policy-development/ ### Two collegewide steering committees developed the framework. > The Collegewide AI Strategic Planning and Implementation Steering Committees developed the TRUST framework Source (primary_official): https://infohub.austincc.edu/blog/2026/10/09/help-shape-accs-ai-policy-development/ ### The first of the framework's five rules asks people to say where AI was used. > Tell Where AI Was Used: Be transparent when AI plays a meaningful role in your work. Source (primary_official): https://infohub.austincc.edu/blog/2026/10/09/help-shape-accs-ai-policy-development/ ### The second asks people to check what AI produces before using it. > Review Outputs: Check AI-generated content carefully before using or sharing it. Source (primary_official): https://infohub.austincc.edu/blog/2026/10/09/help-shape-accs-ai-policy-development/ ### The third says AI should never replace a person's own expertise or responsibility. > AI can support your work, but it should never replace your expertise, decision-making, or responsibility. Source (primary_official): https://infohub.austincc.edu/blog/2026/10/09/help-shape-accs-ai-policy-development/ ### The fourth ties AI use to honest work and real learning. > Safeguard Integrity: Use AI in ways that support honest work, ethical practice, and real learning. Source (primary_official): https://infohub.austincc.edu/blog/2026/10/09/help-shape-accs-ai-policy-development/ ### The fifth asks people to respect copyright, attribution and ownership. > Treat IP with Respect: Respect copyright, attribution, ownership, and the creative work of others. Source (primary_official): https://infohub.austincc.edu/blog/2026/10/09/help-shape-accs-ai-policy-development/ ### A faculty and student AI town hall is set for the evening of Monday, October 12th at the Rio Grande Campus. > Monday, October 12 | 6:30-9 p.m. | Rio Grande Campus Source (primary_official): https://infohub.austincc.edu/blog/2026/10/09/help-shape-accs-ai-policy-development/ ### The town hall is billed as a conversation that will explore the policies in progress. > The discussion will explore in-progress AI policies and how the College can move forward together. Source (primary_official): https://infohub.austincc.edu/blog/2026/10/09/help-shape-accs-ai-policy-development/ ### A faculty convocation on AI and academic integrity is set for Friday, October 16th at the Eastview Campus. > Friday, October 16 | 10 a.m.-2 p.m. | Eastview Campus Source (primary_official): https://infohub.austincc.edu/blog/2026/10/09/help-shape-accs-ai-policy-development/ ### A community seminar on intelligence and humanity is set for Thursday, October 22nd at the Highland Campus. > Thursday, October 22 | 6-9 p.m. | Highland Campus Source (primary_official): https://infohub.austincc.edu/blog/2026/10/09/help-shape-accs-ai-policy-development/ ### Faculty, staff, students and community members are all invited to take part. > Faculty, staff, students, and community members are invited to participate in one or more of these opportunities to share perspectives, ask questions, and help shape the conversation about AI at ACC. Source (primary_official): https://infohub.austincc.edu/blog/2026/10/09/help-shape-accs-ai-policy-development/ ### Feedback can also be sent through a form on the college's generative AI page. > To provide feedback, ask questions, and more, visit the Ways to Get Involved with Generative AI at ACC webpage and submit the form. Source (primary_official): https://infohub.austincc.edu/blog/2026/10/09/help-shape-accs-ai-policy-development/ ### The college's AI resource site already links a PDF titled Acceptable Use of Artificial Intelligence Policy, marked for faculty and staff only. > Acceptable Use of Artificial Intelligence Policy (PDF – ACC Faculty and Staff only) Source (primary_official): https://sites.austincc.edu/ai-resource-hub/responsible-use-guidance/ ### The college says more than 79,000 students rely on it each year. > More than 79,000 students rely on ACC for their education every year. Source (primary_official): https://www.austincc.edu/about-acc --- # UT San Antonio builds a free training platform where students learn to find the security flaws in code an AI wrote The National Science Foundation funds a UT San Antonio project led by Nishant Vishwamitra of the College of AI, Cyber and Computing. Its platform, OpenSecCoder, will teach students to work with code an AI tool generated and to find and fix its security problems in a sandbox. Each lab gives a student a coding agent, a terminal and a debugger. The release says most of the labs need no programming background. It projects how many students a year the project will reach, together with the University at Buffalo. The platform and labs are still being built and no result is reported. - Topic: research-and-science - Decided by: National Science Foundation (federal) - Where: Bexar - Statistical areas: - San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://news.utsa.edu/2026/09/keeping-the-code-safe-how-ut-san-antonio-students-are-learning-to-build-a-safer-ai/ - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-09-23 · effective: UT San Antonio announces the funded project, the date of the release ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-10-11 · Admitted to the record on UT San Antonio's own release. The platform is still being built and the student reach is a projection. - 2026-10-15 · UT San Antonio's free platform for finding security flaws in code an AI wrote reads as announced. - 2026-10-18 · UT San Antonio's free platform for finding security flaws in AI written code reads as announced. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · UT San Antonio's free platform for finding security flaws in AI written code is still open to students. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### An NSF funded project at UT San Antonio trains students to spot security risks in code that AI generated. > Vishwamitra is leading the $500,000 National Science Foundation–funded project to train students, before they enter the workforce, to spot security risks in AI-generated code. Source (primary_official): https://news.utsa.edu/2026/09/keeping-the-code-safe-how-ut-san-antonio-students-are-learning-to-build-a-safer-ai/ ### OpenSecCoder is a free online platform where students practise finding and fixing security problems in AI generated code in a safe environment. > OpenSecCoder, a free online learning platform developed through the project, will teach students to work with AI-generated software code and practice finding and fixing security problems in a safe environment. Source (primary_official): https://news.utsa.edu/2026/09/keeping-the-code-safe-how-ut-san-antonio-students-are-learning-to-build-a-safer-ai/ ### Each lab opens with instructions, a coding agent standing in as the AI tool, a terminal and a debugger. > This opens an interface that includes step-by-step instructions; a coding agent, which serves as the AI tool; a terminal for executing commands; and a debugger for identifying vulnerabilities. Source (primary_official): https://news.utsa.edu/2026/09/keeping-the-code-safe-how-ut-san-antonio-students-are-learning-to-build-a-safer-ai/ ### The project expects to reach undergraduate and graduate students each year with the University at Buffalo. > The project is expected to reach about 600 undergraduate and 400 graduate students each year in collaboration with the University at Buffalo. Source (primary_official): https://news.utsa.edu/2026/09/keeping-the-code-safe-how-ut-san-antonio-students-are-learning-to-build-a-safer-ai/ ### Most of the labs require no programming background. > Five of the eight labs will require no programming background, opening the training to students outside traditional computing fields. Source (primary_official): https://news.utsa.edu/2026/09/keeping-the-code-safe-how-ut-san-antonio-students-are-learning-to-build-a-safer-ai/ ### The project lead says agents are built to finish the task and security is what usually gets sacrificed. > "Agents are built to finish the task and security is usually what gets sacrificed," Vishwamitra said, adding that the code could end up in health care, finance, critical infrastructure, and defense systems. Source (primary_official): https://news.utsa.edu/2026/09/keeping-the-code-safe-how-ut-san-antonio-students-are-learning-to-build-a-safer-ai/ --- # Federal trucking regulators let driverless trucks warn traffic with a cab beacon instead of triangles The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration granted Aurora and other carriers running Level 4 automated trucks a limited five year exemption. It covers the rules on placing warning triangles and flares around a stopped truck. A carrier that notifies the agency first may instead use warning beacons mounted on the cab. The agency found the beacons likely as safe as the triangles a driver would set out. The exemption runs from October 7th, 2026 to October 7th, 2031. The Texas Trucking Association is listed among supporters, and the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association among opponents. It applies on every Texas road a driverless truck uses. - Topic: state-policy - Decided by: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (federal) - Where: Statewide - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2026-0958 - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-10-07 · effective: The exemption takes effect - 2026-10-09 · decided: Published in the Federal Register - 2031-10-07 · expires: The exemption expires ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-10-12 · Admitted on the Federal Register notice granting the exemption. It took effect October 7th and runs to October 7th, 2031. - 2026-10-15 · The federal notice letting automated trucks use a cab beacon instead of warning triangles still reads as published. - 2026-10-18 · The federal notice letting driverless trucks use a cab beacon instead of warning triangles reads as published. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · Federal trucking regulators' permission for a cab beacon in place of warning triangles on driverless trucks still stands. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The agency granted Aurora and other carriers running Level 4 automated trucks a limited five year exemption from the warning device rules. > FMCSA announces its decision to grant a limited five-year exemption to Aurora Operations, Inc. (Aurora) and other motor carriers operating Level 4 automated driving system (ADS)-equipped commercial motor vehicles (CMVs), with prior notice to FMCSA, from compliance with the warning device placement requirements, the steady-burning lamp requirements, and the requirements for the types and number of warning devices. Source (primary_official): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-10-09/pdf/2026-20734.pdf ### A carrier may use warning beacons mounted on the cab in place of traditional warning devices. > This exemption permits motor carriers to use cab-mounted warning beacons in lieu of traditional warning devices on Level 4 ADS-equipped CMVs. Source (primary_official): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-10-09/pdf/2026-20734.pdf ### The agency found the exemption likely as safe as the rule it replaces. > The Agency has determined that granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level of safety provided by the regulation. Source (primary_official): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-10-09/pdf/2026-20734.pdf ### The exemption runs five years. > The exemption is effective October 7, 2026 and expires October 7, 2031. Source (primary_official): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-10-09/pdf/2026-20734.pdf ### The agency received 402 comments, and the Texas Trucking Association is listed among supporters. > FMCSA received a total of 402 comments in response to Aurora’s application. Commenters who support the exemption include the Montana Trucking Association; the Nevada Trucking Association; the Texas Trucking Association; Source (primary_official): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-10-09/pdf/2026-20734.pdf ### The owner operators' association said Aurora's studies do not account for the range of weather, road, lighting and traffic conditions trucks meet. > OOIDA expresses concern that the two studies submitted with Aurora’s application do not account for the varying weather, road, lighting, and traffic conditions that CMVs encounter. Source (primary_official): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-10-09/pdf/2026-20734.pdf --- # Rice University sets out to hire 75 faculty working on AI and plans a research building for it in Houston's Ion District Rice University has launched a universitywide AI initiative. It says 35 of the 75 faculty members it means to recruit to work on AI are already hired and 40 more will follow. It plans to be a lead tenant of The Arc, a research and innovation hub in Houston's Ion District that is scheduled to begin construction this fall. It plans to house a planned AI Foundry there. It will launch a Master of Artificial Intelligence program in fall 2027. The release states no dollar amount for any part of it and reports no result, because most of the plan is still ahead. - Topic: research-and-science - Decided by: Rice University (company) - Where: Harris - Statistical areas: - Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://news.rice.edu/news/2026/rice-launches-transformational-ai-initiative-faculty-hiring-new-programs-and-facilities - Last checked: 2026-10-21 ## Dates - 2026-10-13 · effective: Rice announces the initiative, the date of its release ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-10-15 · Admitted to the record on Rice's own release. Most of the initiative is still to be built or hired, and the release states no cost. - 2026-10-18 · Rice's announcement of its AI faculty hiring and the research building at the Ion District reads as published. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · Rice's plan to hire AI faculty and build in the Ion District is unconfirmed today, since the university's release refused the request. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### Rice has launched a universitywide AI initiative to recruit faculty across disciplines. > Rice University has launched a transformational universitywide AI initiative to recruit 75 faculty members working across disciplines, invest in a new, state-of-the-art facility that advances research and industry collaboration, and expand AI-related courses and degrees Source (primary_official): https://news.rice.edu/news/2026/rice-launches-transformational-ai-initiative-faculty-hiring-new-programs-and-facilities ### Rice says it has already recruited part of the faculty it plans and names how many more will follow. > Rice has already recruited 35 faculty members in recent years whose work centers on AI across several schools, marking the halfway point in the faculty hiring effort. An additional 40 faculty will bring the total number of AI-focused faculty hired this decade to 75. Source (primary_official): https://news.rice.edu/news/2026/rice-launches-transformational-ai-initiative-faculty-hiring-new-programs-and-facilities ### The Arc is scheduled to begin construction in the Ion District this fall, with Rice as a lead tenant. > The Arc at the Ion District is a nearly 200,000-square-foot research and innovation hub scheduled to begin construction in Houston’s Ion District this fall. Rice will be a lead tenant Source (primary_official): https://news.rice.edu/news/2026/rice-launches-transformational-ai-initiative-faculty-hiring-new-programs-and-facilities ### Rice will launch a master's program in AI. > In fall 2027, the school will launch a Master of Artificial Intelligence program for recent computer science graduates and working professionals with technical backgrounds. Source (primary_official): https://news.rice.edu/news/2026/rice-launches-transformational-ai-initiative-faculty-hiring-new-programs-and-facilities ### The AI Foundry is still being planned. > Rice is also advancing planning for the AI Foundry, a new component of the university’s expanding AI ecosystem that will be housed at The Arc Source (primary_official): https://news.rice.edu/news/2026/rice-launches-transformational-ai-initiative-faculty-hiring-new-programs-and-facilities --- # Waymo opens its San Antonio robotaxis to anyone with the app, the airport included, while its flood recall remedy is still listed as under development Waymo opened its San Antonio robotaxi service to anyone with the app on October 14th, 2026, and the service now reaches San Antonio International Airport. Riders had come in by invitation since February, when the service opened across 60 square miles of the city. In April one of its empty cars washed into Salado Creek during heavy rain, and another was stranded in floodwater earlier that month. Waymo then filed a software recall with federal safety regulators. The recall says the system may let a car slow and then drive into standing water on higher speed roadways. The recall record lists the remedy as under development, with tighter weather limits on operations in the meantime. - Topic: state-policy - Decided by: Waymo LLC (company) - Where: Bexar - Statistical areas: - San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://api.nhtsa.gov/recalls/campaignNumber?campaignNumber=26E026 - Last checked: 2026-10-23 ## Dates - 2026-10-14 · effective: Waymo opens the San Antonio service to anyone with the app, the date of its post ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-10-16 · Admitted to the record on Waymo's own post and the federal recall record. The recall's lasting remedy is still listed as under development. - 2026-10-20 · Waymo's San Antonio service is still open to anyone with the app, the airport included. The recall record still lists its lasting remedy as under development. - 2026-10-23 · Waymo's San Antonio service is still open to anyone with the app. The airport is included. The recall record still lists the lasting fix as under development. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### Waymo says anyone in San Antonio can now hail a fully autonomous ride, the airport included. > Starting today, anyone in San Antonio, San Diego, and Tampa can download the Waymo app and hail a fully autonomous ride, including the San Antonio International Airport. Source (primary_corporate): https://waymo.com/blog/shorts/sat-sd-tpa/ ### San Antonio's Director of Airports is quoted calling the airport rides a milestone. > Waymo offering fully autonomous rides at the airport marks a significant milestone for Waymo, our city and travelers. Source (primary_corporate): https://waymo.com/blog/shorts/sat-sd-tpa/ ### Waymo opened the service to its first public riders in four cities in February, San Antonio among them. > Today, we continue our accelerated growth and welcome the first public riders into our fully autonomous ride-hailing service in four new cities: Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, and Orlando. Source (primary_corporate): https://waymo.com/blog/2026/02/dallas-houston-san-antonio-orlando/ ### In February riders came in by invitation. > Select riders from the tens of thousands in these cities who have downloaded the Waymo app will receive an invitation to take their first local rides today. Source (primary_corporate): https://waymo.com/blog/2026/02/dallas-houston-san-antonio-orlando/ ### The federal recall record says Waymo's software may let a car slow and then drive into standing water on higher speed roadways. > The software may allow the vehicle to slow and then drive into standing water on higher speed roadways. Source (primary_official): https://api.nhtsa.gov/recalls/campaignNumber?campaignNumber=26E026 ### The recall record states the consequence of entering a flooded road. > Entering a flooded roadway can cause a loss of vehicle control, increasing the risk of a crash or injury. Source (primary_official): https://api.nhtsa.gov/recalls/campaignNumber?campaignNumber=26E026 ### The recall record lists the remedy as under development and an interim tightening of weather limits. > The remedy is currently under development. As an interim remedy, Waymo modified the scope of vehicle operations to increase weather-related constraints and updated the vehicle maps. Source (primary_official): https://api.nhtsa.gov/recalls/campaignNumber?campaignNumber=26E026 ### The recall record says every affected vehicle had the interim update by April 20th. > All affected vehicles received the interim update by April 20, 2026. Source (primary_official): https://api.nhtsa.gov/recalls/campaignNumber?campaignNumber=26E026 ### Texas Public Radio reports a Waymo car washed into Salado Creek on April 20th. > The Waymo vehicle was swept up in flood waters and washed into Salado Creek during heavy rains on April 20. Source (journalism): https://www.tpr.org/news/2026-05-13/waymo-recalls-almost-3-800-robotaxis-after-flooding-incident-in-san-antonio ### Texas Public Radio reports the car was empty and nobody was hurt. > The car was unoccupied and no one was injured in the incident. Source (journalism): https://www.tpr.org/news/2026-05-13/waymo-recalls-almost-3-800-robotaxis-after-flooding-incident-in-san-antonio ### Texas Public Radio reports an earlier car stranded in floodwater that month. > In an earlier incident that occurred earlier in April, another Waymo vehicle became stranded in floodwaters near McCullough Avenue and Contour Drive. Source (journalism): https://www.tpr.org/news/2026-05-13/waymo-recalls-almost-3-800-robotaxis-after-flooding-incident-in-san-antonio ### Texas Public Radio reports the recall notice said the car detected the flooded road and kept going at reduced speed. > The recall notice said while the vehicle detected the flooded road, it continued on its path and proceeded at a reduced speed. Source (journalism): https://www.tpr.org/news/2026-05-13/waymo-recalls-almost-3-800-robotaxis-after-flooding-incident-in-san-antonio ### Texas Public Radio reports the service area in February covered part of the city. > Waymo began operations in San Antonio in February in a limited service area covering 60 square miles of the city. Source (journalism): https://www.tpr.org/economy-and-labor/2026-05-10/waymo-set-to-return-to-san-antonio-after-flood-incidents-paused-service ### Texas Public Radio reports the flood pause was the longest of Waymo's San Antonio service. > The service pause has been the company’s longest in San Antonio to date as Waymo reviewed its flood monitoring procedures and safety protocols. Source (journalism): https://www.tpr.org/economy-and-labor/2026-05-10/waymo-set-to-return-to-san-antonio-after-flood-incidents-paused-service --- # An MD Anderson AI model reads where T cells gather in tumor tissue, and points at mucin as a wall that may keep them out Researchers at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and collaborating Texas institutions published an AI model called SPACER in Nature Biomedical Engineering. It reads spatial maps of gene activity in intact tissue and looks at groups of neighboring cells to infer why immune cells gather in some regions and avoid others. The team ran it on 37 datasets and reports it was four to 21 times more effective than existing approaches on its benchmark tasks. Its leading finding is that mucins, sugar coated proteins many cancers overproduce, may form a physical barrier that keeps T cells away from tumors. In melanoma and gastric cancer datasets, tumors with more mucin went with poorer response to checkpoint drugs. The finding is an association in existing data. The researchers describe it as an idea to test in the lab, and the release reports no use of the tool in patient care. - Topic: research-and-science - Decided by: The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (state-agency) - Where: Harris - Statistical areas: - Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://www.mdanderson.org/newsroom/research-newsroom/ai-tool-reveals-what-attracts-immune-cells-to-tumors-and-what-keeps-them-away.h00-159859290.html - Last checked: 2026-10-23 ## Dates - 2026-10-13 · filed: Date of MD Anderson's research news release announcing the published study ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-10-17 · MD Anderson's release of October 13th describes the published model and its mucin finding as an idea to test in the lab, with no use in patient care reported. - 2026-10-20 · MD Anderson's October 13th release still frames the mucin finding as an idea for the lab to test, with no use in patient care reported. - 2026-10-23 · MD Anderson's release still treats the mucin barrier as an idea to test in the lab. No use in patient care is reported. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### MD Anderson and collaborating Texas institutions built an AI model meant to explain why immune cells gather in some places in the body and avoid others. > Researchers at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and collaborating institutions in Texas developed an artificial intelligence (AI) model that helps explain how immune cells find their way to specific locations in the body and why they avoid others. Source (primary_official): https://www.mdanderson.org/newsroom/research-newsroom/ai-tool-reveals-what-attracts-immune-cells-to-tumors-and-what-keeps-them-away.h00-159859290.html ### The model, called SPACER, reads spatial transcriptomics, which measures gene activity in intact tissue and records where each gene is active. > The tool, known as Spatial Analysis of Cellular Engagement and Recruitment (SPACER), makes use of spatial transcriptomics, a molecular technique that measures gene activity within intact tissue to highlight which genes are expressed and where. Source (primary_official): https://www.mdanderson.org/newsroom/research-newsroom/ai-tool-reveals-what-attracts-immune-cells-to-tumors-and-what-keeps-them-away.h00-159859290.html ### It examines groups of neighboring cells rather than treating each cell alone. > Instead of treating cells as isolated units, the tool examines groups of neighboring cells and how they work together. Source (primary_official): https://www.mdanderson.org/newsroom/research-newsroom/ai-tool-reveals-what-attracts-immune-cells-to-tumors-and-what-keeps-them-away.h00-159859290.html ### The team ran it on 37 datasets and reports it beat existing approaches by four to 21 times on its benchmark tasks. > The team applied SPACER across 37 datasets representing several cancer types. In benchmarking tasks, the model was four- to 21-times more effective than existing approaches at identifying biologically meaningful signals linked to cell recruitment. Source (primary_official): https://www.mdanderson.org/newsroom/research-newsroom/ai-tool-reveals-what-attracts-immune-cells-to-tumors-and-what-keeps-them-away.h00-159859290.html ### Immune cells appear to answer signals close by rather than signals circulating elsewhere in the body. > One of the most meaningful findings was that immune cells appear to respond primarily to signals in their immediate surroundings rather than signals circulating elsewhere in the body. Source (primary_official): https://www.mdanderson.org/newsroom/research-newsroom/ai-tool-reveals-what-attracts-immune-cells-to-tumors-and-what-keeps-them-away.h00-159859290.html ### Tumors expressing antigen presentation genes were more likely to draw T cells in. > SPACER revealed that tumors expressing genes involved in antigen presentation, the process by which cells display protein fragments for immune cells to inspect, were more likely to attract T cells. Source (primary_official): https://www.mdanderson.org/newsroom/research-newsroom/ai-tool-reveals-what-attracts-immune-cells-to-tumors-and-what-keeps-them-away.h00-159859290.html ### Mucins, sugar coated proteins many cancers overproduce, may form a physical barrier keeping T cells away from tumors. > Additionally, the researchers uncovered evidence that mucins, a family of large, sugar-coated proteins produced by many cancers, may help create physical barriers that keep T cells away from tumors. Source (primary_official): https://www.mdanderson.org/newsroom/research-newsroom/ai-tool-reveals-what-attracts-immune-cells-to-tumors-and-what-keeps-them-away.h00-159859290.html ### In melanoma and gastric cancer datasets, tumors with more mucin went with poorer response to checkpoint drugs and poorer outcomes. > Across several melanoma and gastric cancer datasets, tumors with higher levels of mucins were associated with poorer responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors and poorer patient outcomes. Source (primary_official): https://www.mdanderson.org/newsroom/research-newsroom/ai-tool-reveals-what-attracts-immune-cells-to-tumors-and-what-keeps-them-away.h00-159859290.html ### The researchers say the tool could potentially be used as a diagnostic tool, which the release does not show it doing yet. > The researchers believe SPACER could potentially be used as a diagnostic tool for cancer therapies and to improve understanding of diseases and scenarios in which cell movement and positioning are important, including autoimmune disorders, tissue repair and wound healing. Source (primary_official): https://www.mdanderson.org/newsroom/research-newsroom/ai-tool-reveals-what-attracts-immune-cells-to-tumors-and-what-keeps-them-away.h00-159859290.html ### The co-lead describes the findings as ideas to be tested in the lab. > This helps us turn these insights into new ideas we can test in the lab. Source (primary_official): https://www.mdanderson.org/newsroom/research-newsroom/ai-tool-reveals-what-attracts-immune-cells-to-tumors-and-what-keeps-them-away.h00-159859290.html ### The study is published in Nature Biomedical Engineering. > The study, published in Nature Biomedical Engineering , was co-led by Tao Wang, Ph.D. , associate professor of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology ; and Linghua Wang, M.D., Ph.D. , professor of Genomic Medicine Source (primary_official): https://www.mdanderson.org/newsroom/research-newsroom/ai-tool-reveals-what-attracts-immune-cells-to-tumors-and-what-keeps-them-away.h00-159859290.html --- # USDA's Kerrville laboratory builds AI models that pick where, when and how many sterile flies to release against New World screwworm The USDA Agricultural Research Service says it is managing New World screwworm with predictive models. It says the models use advanced analytic tools and artificial intelligence to read ecological, environmental and historical information. USDA uses what the models show to choose the locations, timing and number of sterile flies to release. The models also guide where aircraft, fly traps and surveillance go. Kim Lohmeyer directs the agency's Knipling-Bushland Livestock Insects Research Laboratory in Kerrville and says the models already select areas for surveillance, trapping and sterile fly releases. Lohmeyer also says the models can't predict every scenario, especially people moving infested animals. KRGV reports USDA saying its drones have flown across Texas more than 2,000 times since June. The flights observed more than 36,000 animals and found no screwworm cases. USDA officials told the station the drones are not foolproof and use artificial intelligence to inspect animal wounds. Neither source gives an accuracy figure for the models or the drones. The Texas Animal Health Commission counts 47 premises in 18 Texas counties with a confirmed detection, the first in a Zavala County calf on June 3rd. The drones' count of no cases covers only what the flights observed. An agency page last modified July 31st says USDA's dispersal facility in Edinburg deploys more than 80 million sterile flies a week over Texas and Mexico. The commission keeps movement restrictions in place across an established infested zone. - Topic: research-and-science - Decided by: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (federal) - Where: Statewide - Statistical areas: - Del Rio, TX - Kerrville, TX - Rio Grande City-Roma, TX - Zapata, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://www.ars.usda.gov/news-events/news/research-news/2026/tracking-the-path-of-new-world-screwworm - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-10-12 · filed: KRGV report of USDA's drone flight and animal counts ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-10-18 · Admitted on the research service's own page and KRGV's report of USDA's drone counts. No case found is the result the drones report, and neither source gives an accuracy figure. - 2026-10-21 · The Texas Animal Health Commission now counts 44 Texas premises with a confirmed screwworm detection, up from 43, still across 17 counties. The research service's account of its models still reads as cited. - 2026-10-24 · The commission's count rose to 47 premises in 18 Texas counties with a confirmed detection, up from 44 premises in 17 counties. The infested zone restrictions stay in place. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### USDA's research service says its predictive models for New World screwworm use advanced analytic tools and artificial intelligence. > Predictive models use advanced analytic tools and artificial intelligence (AI) to interpret ecological, environmental, and historical information to predict where New World screwworm is likely to become established and the potential pathways it may follow to spread. Source (primary_official): https://www.ars.usda.gov/news-events/news/research-news/2026/tracking-the-path-of-new-world-screwworm ### USDA says it uses the models to choose where, when and how many sterile flies to release. > USDA uses insights from the models to identify optimal locations, timing, and the number of sterile flies to release for the most effective application, to interrupt their reproductive cycle and spread. Source (primary_official): https://www.ars.usda.gov/news-events/news/research-news/2026/tracking-the-path-of-new-world-screwworm ### The director of the Kerrville laboratory says the models are already used to select areas for surveillance, fly trapping and sterile fly releases. > are already being utilized to select areas for increased livestock and wildlife surveillance, adult fly trapping, and for implementing SIT Source (primary_official): https://www.ars.usda.gov/news-events/news/research-news/2026/tracking-the-path-of-new-world-screwworm ### The same director says the models can't predict every scenario, especially ones driven by people transporting infested animals. > However, these models cannot predict every scenario, especially those impacted by unpredictable variables like people transporting infested animals. Source (primary_official): https://www.ars.usda.gov/news-events/news/research-news/2026/tracking-the-path-of-new-world-screwworm ### The laboratory leading the work is the Knipling-Bushland Livestock Insects Research Laboratory in Kerrville. > said Kim Lohmeyer, Director of the ARS Knipling-Bushland Livestock Insects Research Laboratory in Kerrville, TX Source (primary_official): https://www.ars.usda.gov/news-events/news/research-news/2026/tracking-the-path-of-new-world-screwworm ### KRGV reports USDA saying its drones have flown across Texas more than 2,000 times since June looking for New World screwworm. > The U.S. Department of Agriculture says it has flown drones across Texas more than 2,000 times since June to look for the New World screwworm. Source (journalism): https://www.krgv.com/news/no-screwworm-cases-found-after-usda-conducts-2-000-drone-flights-over-texas ### KRGV reports USDA saying the flights observed more than 36,000 animals and found no screwworm cases. > The USDA said it observed more than 36,000 animals and found no screwworm cases. Source (journalism): https://www.krgv.com/news/no-screwworm-cases-found-after-usda-conducts-2-000-drone-flights-over-texas ### USDA officials told KRGV the drones are not foolproof and use artificial intelligence to inspect animal wounds. > USDA officials said drones are not foolproof for detecting screwworms, but they use artificial intelligence to inspect animal wounds more effectively. Source (journalism): https://www.krgv.com/news/no-screwworm-cases-found-after-usda-conducts-2-000-drone-flights-over-texas ### USDA asks anyone who sees signs of screwworm infestation in an animal to report it through its reporting page. > If you spot signs of New World screwworm infestation in animals, report it to the appropriate responding official by visiting the USDA New World screwworm reporting page Source (primary_official): https://www.ars.usda.gov/news-events/news/research-news/2026/tracking-the-path-of-new-world-screwworm ### The Texas Animal Health Commission says New World screwworm was first confirmed in Texas on June 3rd in a calf in Zavala County. > On June 3, 2026, New World screwworm (NWS) was confirmed in a calf in Zavala County, Texas. Source (primary_official): https://www.tahc.texas.gov/emergency/nws.html ### The Texas Animal Health Commission counts 17 Texas counties with a confirmed New World screwworm detection in the 2026 outbreak. > Total Texas counties with a confirmed NWS detection: 17 Source (primary_official): https://www.tahc.texas.gov/emergency/nws.html ### The Texas Animal Health Commission counts 43 Texas premises confirmed with at least one New World screwworm detection. > Total Texas premises confirmed with at least one NWS detection: 43 Source (primary_official): https://www.tahc.texas.gov/emergency/nws.html ### An APHIS page last modified July 31st says the $8.5 million Edinburg dispersal facility deploys more than 80 million sterile flies per week over Texas and Mexico. > This $8.5 million facility is now used to deploy more than 80 million sterile flies per week over Texas and Mexico. Source (primary_official): https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animals/animal-health/livestock-and-poultry-disease/usda-continues-lead-aggressive-national-nws ### The commission says movement restrictions are in place in an established infested zone in parts of Brewster, Crockett, Edwards, Jeff Davis, Pecos, Presidio, Schleicher, Starr, Sutton, Terrell, Val Verde and Zapata counties. > There are currently movement restrictions in place due to an established New World Screwworm Infested Zone in parts of the following Texas counties: Brewster, Crockett, Edwards, Jeff Davis, Pecos, Presidio, Schleicher, Starr, Sutton, Terrell, Val Verde, Zapata. Source (primary_official): https://www.tahc.texas.gov/emergency/nws.html ### The commission says screwworm is reportable to it and should be reported within 24 hours of suspicion. > NWS is reportable to the TAHC and should be reported within 24 hours of suspicion. Source (primary_official): https://www.tahc.texas.gov/emergency/nws.html ### The commission says suspected cases in livestock and pets go to a regional office or its veterinarian on call at 1-800-550-8242. > Report suspected cases in livestock and companion animals: TAHC — Region Office or the Veterinarian on Call 1-800-550-8242. Source (primary_official): https://www.tahc.texas.gov/emergency/nws.html ### The Texas Animal Health Commission counts 44 Texas premises confirmed with at least one New World screwworm detection. > Total Texas premises confirmed with at least one NWS detection: 44 Source (primary_official): https://www.tahc.texas.gov/emergency/nws.html ### The Texas Animal Health Commission counts 18 Texas counties with a confirmed New World screwworm detection in the 2026 outbreak. > Total Texas counties with a confirmed NWS detection: 18 Source (primary_official): https://www.tahc.texas.gov/emergency/nws.html ### The Texas Animal Health Commission counts 47 Texas premises confirmed with at least one New World screwworm detection. > Total Texas premises confirmed with at least one NWS detection: 47 Source (primary_official): https://www.tahc.texas.gov/emergency/nws.html --- # The utility commission sues the Attorney General to keep the county and water planning area of each surveyed data center from release The Public Utility Commission of Texas filed an original petition in Travis County district court on October 5th, 2026 against Attorney General Ken Paxton in his official capacity. It challenges two open records letter rulings, OR2026-038988 and OR2026-040171. They would require it to release two fields from the facility level responses to its Energy and Water Use Survey. The fields are the facility county and the facility state regional water planning area. The commission asks the court to declare both fields confidential under the Public Information Act and the Texas Homeland Security Act. The rulings answered six requests from five requestors, among them reporters at the Texas Tribune, the Texas Observer and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. The petition says the requestors may intervene. - Topic: data-centers - Decided by: Public Utility Commission of Texas (state-agency) - Where: Statewide - Statistical areas: - Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX - Status: pending - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://www.texaspolicyresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/D-1-GN-26-010018.pdf - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-10-05 · filed: Original petition file stamped by the Travis County District Clerk, cause D-1-GN-26-010018, 200th District Court ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-10-18 · Admitted on the file stamped petition. No hearing date or answer from the Attorney General was found. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-10-24 · The commission's suit against the Attorney General over each surveyed data center's county and water planning area still stands as filed. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The commission's suit challenges two open records letter rulings of the Attorney General. > OR2026-038988 issued on September 2, 2026, which the Commission received on September 3, 2026, and OR2026-040171 issued on September 11, 2026 Source (primary_official): https://www.texaspolicyresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/D-1-GN-26-010018.pdf ### The two fields at issue are each surveyed facility's county and its state regional water planning area. > facility state regional water planning area (SRWPA) reported for each facility, identified as columns C and D in the Survey, respectively Source (primary_official): https://www.texaspolicyresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/D-1-GN-26-010018.pdf ### The rulings answered six requests from five requestors. > The Letter Rulings address six (6) individual requests from five (5) requestors Source (primary_official): https://www.texaspolicyresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/D-1-GN-26-010018.pdf ### The commission argues the rulings conflict with the Public Information Act and the Texas Homeland Security Act. > The Attorney General’s position is not supported by the PIA or the Texas Homeland Security Act Source (primary_official): https://www.texaspolicyresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/D-1-GN-26-010018.pdf ### The petition was file stamped by the Travis County District Clerk in the 200th District Court. > 200th District Court Source (primary_official): https://www.texaspolicyresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/D-1-GN-26-010018.pdf --- # San Antonio takes two data center zoning proposals to a public hearing on October 20th and a council vote on October 29th The City of San Antonio's Department of Development Services presented two proposals to change the Unified Development Code for data centers. One would require every data center to receive a Specific Use Authorization zoning designation, which would give the City Council a vote on each proposed data center. The city says the proposals come before the Zoning Commission at a public hearing on October 20th, 2026. They go to a final City Council vote on October 29th, 2026. Residents can sign up to comment at both meetings. Councilmember Ric Galvan, who asked for the review, says every new data center in city limits should require a council vote. - Topic: data-centers - Decided by: San Antonio City Council (city) - Where: Bexar - Statistical areas: - San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX - Status: pending - Public access: Public meeting - Take part: https://www.sa.gov/Directory/Departments/DSD/Boards-Commissions/Public-Input - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-10-20 · hearing: Zoning Commission public hearing on the proposals, per the city's release - 2026-10-29 · hearing: City Council final vote, per the city's release ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-10-18 · Admitted on the city's release. The Zoning Commission hearing on October 20th and the council vote on October 29th are both still ahead. - 2026-10-20 · Both data center zoning proposals are still set for the Zoning Commission today, October 20th, with the council vote on October 29th still ahead. - 2026-10-22 · Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement. - 2026-10-23 · San Antonio's two data center zoning cases are still set for the council vote on October 29th, after the October 20th hearing. - 2026-10-24 · San Antonio's two data center zoning proposals still head to a council vote after the public hearing. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The city's development services department presented two proposals to change its zoning code for data centers, one requiring a council vote on every data center. > DSD presented two proposals for changing the UDC to address data center construction, including a proposal to require that all data centers be granted a Specific Use Authorization zoning designation that would give the City Council the opportunity to vote on every proposed data center in San Antonio. Source (primary_official): https://www.sa.gov/Directory/News-Releases/D6-Councilmember-Calls-for-Stronger-Regulations-on-Data-Centers ### The Zoning Commission holds a public hearing on October 20th and the City Council votes on October 29th. > The proposals will come before the Zoning Commission at a public hearing on October 20, 2026, and for a final vote by City Council on October 29, 2026. Source (primary_official): https://www.sa.gov/Directory/News-Releases/D6-Councilmember-Calls-for-Stronger-Regulations-on-Data-Centers ### Residents can sign up to comment at both meetings. > Community members can sign up to provide public comment at both meetings. Source (primary_official): https://www.sa.gov/Directory/News-Releases/D6-Councilmember-Calls-for-Stronger-Regulations-on-Data-Centers ### Councilmember Galvan says every new data center in city limits should need a council vote. > All new data centers within city limits should require a vote by City Council. Source (primary_official): https://www.sa.gov/Directory/News-Releases/D6-Councilmember-Calls-for-Stronger-Regulations-on-Data-Centers --- # Google.org funds a UT Austin team to build AI surrogate models for testing fusion reactor designs The University of Texas at Austin says a team led by assistant professor of physics Joshua Burby was selected for the Google.org Impact Challenge on AI for Science. The team will receive funding and support over three years to use artificial intelligence in fusion energy research. The team will build surrogate models that make the repeated calculations used to test stellarator designs faster and cheaper. The university says the team is among 17 organizations sharing a combined $36 million. The award funds a plan, and no result has been reported. - Topic: research-and-science - Decided by: Google.org (company) - Where: Travis - Statistical areas: - Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://news.utexas.edu/2026/10/16/in-brief-ut-led-fusion-research-team-wins-google-org-ai-award/ - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-10-16 · filed: Date of UT Austin's news item announcing the award ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-10-18 · Admitted on the university's own news item. The award funds a plan and no result is reported. - 2026-10-21 · Checked and unchanged. The decision still stands as decided. - 2026-10-24 · Google.org's funding for the UT Austin fusion surrogate model team still stands. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### A UT Austin team was selected for the Google.org Impact Challenge on AI for Science, with funding and support over three years. > A research team at The University of Texas at Austin has been selected as a recipient of the Google.org Impact Challenge: AI for Science , and will receive funding and support from Google.org over three years to use artificial intelligence to accelerate fusion energy research. Source (primary_official): https://news.utexas.edu/2026/10/16/in-brief-ut-led-fusion-research-team-wins-google-org-ai-award/ ### The team will build surrogate models to make repeated calculations faster and cheaper. > The team will build surrogate models that will make repeated calculations faster and more affordable. Source (primary_official): https://news.utexas.edu/2026/10/16/in-brief-ut-led-fusion-research-team-wins-google-org-ai-award/ ### Stellarator designs are hard and expensive to test in simulation. > Their complex shapes make designs difficult and expensive to test through computer simulations. Source (primary_official): https://news.utexas.edu/2026/10/16/in-brief-ut-led-fusion-research-team-wins-google-org-ai-award/ ### The team led by Joshua Burby is among 17 organizations sharing a combined $36 million. > The team, led by assistant professor of physics Joshua Burby , is among the 17 organizations selected to receive a combined $36 million in funding. Source (primary_official): https://news.utexas.edu/2026/10/16/in-brief-ut-led-fusion-research-team-wins-google-org-ai-award/ --- # Houston Methodist ties camera AI in 15 cardiothoracic surgery rooms to about 25 more cases a month, and says it can't prove the cameras caused it Houston Methodist researchers published a study in the Journal of Imaging on June 27th, 2026. It covers an image based AI system from Apella that the hospital put into a 15 room cardiothoracic suite at Walter Tower in December 2022. Four wall mounted cameras in each room feed a model that timestamps workflow events such as patient entry, draping and turnover. The system also texts surgeons as a case moves. The study compares the suite with a synthetic control built from 10 donor sites. It estimates about 25 more cases a month, a 7 percent rise, with an interval of 8.3 to 41.0. A placebo test returned p = 0.182 and fell short of conventional significance. The authors call the rise associated with the deployment rather than caused by it. The rollout came bundled with workflow reviews and the study can't separate the two. The hospital holds a minority equity interest in Apella. An Apella employee ran the original analyses and a hospital analyst replicated them. - Topic: health-and-education - Decided by: Houston Methodist Hospital (company) - Where: Harris - Statistical areas: - Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13412611/ - Last checked: 2026-10-23 ## Dates - 2026-06-27 · filed: Published in the Journal of Imaging ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-10-20 · Admitted on the published study and the hospital's own account of it. Neither says how widely the cameras have spread since the study period, which ended in September 2023. - 2026-10-23 · The study still ties the cameras to more cases a month and still says it can't show they caused the rise. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The study was published in the Journal of Imaging on June 27th, 2026. > 2026 Jun 27;12(7):283. doi: 10.3390/jimaging12070283 Source (primary_official): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13412611/ ### The study covers a 15 room cardiothoracic operating suite at Houston Methodist Hospital. > in a 15-room cardiothoracic suite at Houston Methodist Hospital (HMH) Source (primary_official): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13412611/ ### Each operating room in the suite was fitted with four high resolution wall mounted cameras. > Each operating room was outfitted with four high-resolution wall-mounted cameras Source (primary_official): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13412611/ ### The image based AI software was deployed at Walter Tower in December 2022. > The IBAI software was deployed at Walter Tower (WT) in December 2022. Source (primary_official): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13412611/ ### The study window ran 16 months, 6 before deployment and 10 after, and covered 5417 surgical cases at the suite. > Over a 16-month period spanning 6 months pre-deployment and 10 months post-deployment, the system monitored 5417 surgical cases Source (primary_official): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13412611/ ### The study estimates the deployment was associated with about 25 more cases a month, with a 95% confidence interval of 8.3 to 41.0, about 7% above baseline. > showed a statistically significant increase of approximately 25 cases per month (95% CI 8.3 to 41.0; p < 0.01; Bonferroni-adjusted p < 0.05), corresponding to a 7% increase in monthly case volume relative to baseline Source (primary_official): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13412611/ ### The paper puts the suite's baseline at approximately 339 cases a month. > roughly 7% against a baseline of approximately 339 cases per month Source (primary_official): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13412611/ ### In the placebo permutation test Walter Tower ranked second of 11 units, an empirical p of 0.182. > Walter Tower had the second-largest ratio of post-deployment to pre-deployment prediction error among the 11 units (Walter Tower and 10 donor sites; empirical p = 0.182) Source (primary_official): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13412611/ ### The authors write that the permutation result points the same way as the main estimate but does not reach conventional statistical significance. > the permutation result is directionally consistent with the difference-in-differences estimate but does not reach conventional statistical significance Source (primary_official): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13412611/ ### The authors interpret the rise in case volume as associated with the deployment rather than caused by it. > we interpret the case-volume effect as associated with, rather than caused by, IBAI deployment Source (primary_official): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13412611/ ### The estimate covers the technology platform and its change management program together, and the study can't attribute the gains to either one alone. > The current effect estimate therefore reflects the combined contribution of the technology platform and the change-management program, and cannot separately attribute the observed gains to one or the other component. Source (primary_official): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13412611/ ### A sensitivity analysis found no statistically significant change in total operative minutes a month. > In a sensitivity analysis using total operative minutes per month as a case-mix-insensitive outcome, the difference-in-differences estimate was not statistically significant Source (primary_official): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13412611/ ### The hospital holds a minority equity interest in Apella Technology, the paper discloses. > Houston Methodist Hospital holds a minority equity interest in Apella Technology. Source (primary_official): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13412611/ ### The original synthetic control and difference in differences analyses were run by an Apella Technology employee. > Nate Hilger, acknowledged above for conducting the original synthetic control and difference-in-differences analyses, is employed by Apella Technology. Source (primary_official): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13412611/ ### A Houston Methodist analyst then replicated those analyses independently on the same aggregated dataset. > These analyses were subsequently replicated independently by a Houston Methodist analyst using the same aggregated dataset. Source (primary_official): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13412611/ ### The paper states Apella did not fund the study and had no role in its design, interpretation or publication beyond the analyses its employee ran. > Apella Technology did not fund the study and had no role in the study design, the interpretation of results, the decision to publish, or the preparation of the manuscript, beyond the analytical contribution described above Source (primary_official): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13412611/ ### The paper says video is kept for at most 30 days and audio for at most 7 days. > Video footage is retained for a maximum of 30 days and audio for a maximum of 7 days Source (primary_official): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13412611/ ### Access to recordings from incision to skin closure is restricted to three designated roles. > Access to intraoperative recordings, defined as the period from incision to skin closure, is restricted to three designated roles Source (primary_official): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13412611/ ### The surgeon is told whenever one of those recordings is reviewed. > The surgeon is informed whenever an intraoperative recording is reviewed. Source (primary_official): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13412611/ ### The detection system was trained on a global dataset of 137,517 surgical cases from 315 operating rooms. > The system was trained on a global dataset comprising 137,517 surgical cases performed across 315 operating rooms by 1853 surgeons. Source (primary_official): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13412611/ ### During a learning period a human led quality control team confirmed the locations and actions the system identified. > Locations and actions were confirmed by a human-led quality control team. Source (primary_official): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13412611/ ### The hospital's blog says wall mounted cameras in each operating room automatically identify and timestamp workflow steps. > The new system uses wall-mounted cameras in each OR to automatically identify and timestamp these moments. Source (primary_corporate): https://www.houstonmethodist.org/leading-medicine-blog/articles/2026/aug/image-based-ai-improves-or-efficiency-at-houston-methodist/ ### The hospital's blog says the system texts surgeons when a patient arrives, when the patient is draped and when the case ends. > It also sends text alerts to surgeons when a patient arrives, when the patient is draped and when the case ends. Source (primary_corporate): https://www.houstonmethodist.org/leading-medicine-blog/articles/2026/aug/image-based-ai-improves-or-efficiency-at-houston-methodist/ ### The hospital's blog says operative minutes did not decrease and that turnover times did, letting more cases fit in the same operating room hours. > Operative minutes did not decrease, indicating surgeons were not operating faster. However, turnover times decreased, enabling more cases to be completed within the same OR hours. Source (primary_corporate): https://www.houstonmethodist.org/leading-medicine-blog/articles/2026/aug/image-based-ai-improves-or-efficiency-at-houston-methodist/ ### The hospital's blog says staff raised concerns about surveillance, data security and privacy, which led to discussions with legal, ethics and operations teams. > Staff expressed concerns about surveillance, data security and privacy, prompting extensive discussions with legal, ethics and operations teams. Source (primary_corporate): https://www.houstonmethodist.org/leading-medicine-blog/articles/2026/aug/image-based-ai-improves-or-efficiency-at-houston-methodist/ ### The hospital's blog says signs are posted in operating rooms and patient consent is folded into universal consent for care. > For patients, clear signage is posted in ORs and consent is incorporated into universal consent for care. Source (primary_corporate): https://www.houstonmethodist.org/leading-medicine-blog/articles/2026/aug/image-based-ai-improves-or-efficiency-at-houston-methodist/ ### The 10 month post deployment period ran from December 2022 through September 2023. > the 10-month post-deployment period (December 2022 through September 2023) Source (primary_official): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13412611/ ### The paper names Apella Technology as the vendor of the image based AI system it evaluates, and says the hospital bought the operating room camera hardware from it. > Houston Methodist has a commercial relationship with Apella Technology (San Francisco, CA, USA), the vendor of the image-based AI system evaluated in this study, comprising the purchase of operating room camera hardware. Source (primary_official): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13412611/ --- # Texas A&M researchers find language models trained on junk social media posts start skipping reasoning steps, and better data doesn't fully fix them Texas A&M Engineering reported on October 19th, 2026 that researchers trained four open language models on mixes of junk and control text drawn from 1 million public Twitter posts. The release says the posts were collected in 2010. The paper itself says its dataset was collected in 2023. Under the paper's engagement measure a junk post was short and popular, under 30 tokens with more than 500 likes, retweets, replies and quotes combined. The main change in the models was thought skipping, where a model skips steps before it answers. On one model, accuracy on ARC Challenge with chain of thought fell from 72.1 to 57.2 as the junk share rose from 0% to 100%. Instruction data totaling 4.8 times the junk tokens did not fully restore it. The paper lists Texas A&M, the University of Texas at Austin and Purdue as its institutions and was accepted to the 2026 Conference on Language Modeling. Larger closed models were not tested. - Topic: research-and-science - Decided by: Texas A&M University (state-agency) - Where: Brazos - Statistical areas: - College Station-Bryan, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://news.engineering.tamu.edu/news/2026/10/19/ai-models-can-get-brain-rot-too/ - Last checked: 2026-10-22 ## Dates - 2026-10-19 · filed: Texas A&M Engineering reports the findings ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-10-20 · Admitted on the university's own account. The release reports no benchmark scores, so the size of the effect isn't stated here. - 2026-10-22 · The paper behind the release now carries the record's figures. It dates its Twitter dataset to 2023, where the release says 2010, so the summary gives both. It adds the dose results and the repair test, and names UT Austin and Purdue beside Texas A&M. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### Texas A&M computer scientists found that language models trained on junk social media text can degrade. > Tu, assistant professor in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at Texas A&M University , found that when large language models (LLMs) train on junk data, they can get brain rot, too. Source (primary_official): https://news.engineering.tamu.edu/news/2026/10/19/ai-models-can-get-brain-rot-too/ ### The work was accepted to the 2026 Conference on Language Modeling. > This research was recently accepted to the 2026 Conference on Language Modeling. Source (primary_official): https://news.engineering.tamu.edu/news/2026/10/19/ai-models-can-get-brain-rot-too/ ### The main change they found was models skipping reasoning steps. > the main cognitive change in LLMs trained on junk data was thought-skipping, meaning the model will skip steps, or not “think” at all, before providing an answer. Source (primary_official): https://news.engineering.tamu.edu/news/2026/10/19/ai-models-can-get-brain-rot-too/ ### Training on better data afterward did not fully bring the models back. > Even after we use some higher quality data to train the model or deploy some techniques to improve the model’s response, it is very hard to recover the model Source (primary_official): https://news.engineering.tamu.edu/news/2026/10/19/ai-models-can-get-brain-rot-too/ ### The test data was 1 million public Twitter posts collected in 2010. > the researchers used a dataset of 1 million public Twitter posts collected in 2010 that included engagement data, like the number of retweets. Source (primary_official): https://news.engineering.tamu.edu/news/2026/10/19/ai-models-can-get-brain-rot-too/ ### A post counted as junk with more than 500 combined likes, retweets or replies and fewer than 30 tokens. > researchers designated posts as junk if they received more than a combined 500 likes, retweets or replies and contained fewer than 30 tokens. Source (primary_official): https://news.engineering.tamu.edu/news/2026/10/19/ai-models-can-get-brain-rot-too/ ### Four open models were trained on mixes of junk and control data. > Once the junk and control datasets were assembled, the researchers trained four LLMs on various proportions of junk and control data. Through training, LLMs learn to make predictions based on a dataset. The four LLMs they selected — Llama3 8B Instruct, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct, Qwen2.5 0.5B Instruct and Qwen3 4B Instruct — are diverse in size and represent different model families. Source (primary_official): https://news.engineering.tamu.edu/news/2026/10/19/ai-models-can-get-brain-rot-too/ ### The researchers say larger closed models like ChatGPT or Gemini still need testing. > Testing for brain rot in larger models like ChatGPT or Gemini, which are not open source, is also needed. Source (primary_official): https://news.engineering.tamu.edu/news/2026/10/19/ai-models-can-get-brain-rot-too/ ### The paper itself says its Twitter/X dataset was collected in 2023. > The dataset was collected in 2023 Source (primary_official): https://arxiv.org/html/2510.13928v3 ### Under the paper's engagement measure, junk posts were under 30 tokens with popularity over 500, and control posts were over 100 tokens with none. > For M1 , we choose samples with a token length < 30 <30 (the corpus median) and a popularity of > 500 >500 (the 97th percentile) as junk data, and samples with a token length > 100 >100 (the 99th percentile) and a popularity of = 0 =0 as control data Source (primary_official): https://arxiv.org/html/2510.13928v3 ### The paper lists its affiliations as Texas A&M University, the University of Texas at Austin and Purdue University. > Ananth Grama, Zhengzhong Tu, Zhangyang Wang Texas A&M University, University of Texas at Austin, Purdue University Source (primary_official): https://arxiv.org/html/2510.13928v3 ### Under the engagement measure, accuracy on ARC Challenge with chain of thought fell from 72.1 to 57.2 as the junk share rose from 0% to 100%. > under M1, ARC-Challenge with Chain-of-Thought drops 72.1 -> 57.2 and RULER-CWE 83.7 -> 52.3 as junk ratio rises from 0% to 100% Source (primary_official): https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.13928 ### Instruction data totaling 4.8 times the junk tokens still did not fully undo the damage. > Even if we used up all instruction data, consisting of 4.8 4.8 times of the tokens used in junk intervention, the damage caused by junk intervention still cannot be fully undone Source (primary_official): https://arxiv.org/html/2510.13928v3 --- # Rice University sets out to hire 40 more AI faculty, for 75 this decade, and to take lab space at The Arc in Houston's Ion District Rice University announced on October 13th, 2026 a universitywide AI initiative. It has hired 35 AI focused faculty in recent years and plans 40 more for a total of 75 this decade. Rice will be a lead tenant in The Arc, a research hub in Houston's Ion District. The Arc is scheduled to begin construction this fall and will hold a planned AI Foundry. A Master of Artificial Intelligence program launches in fall 2027. The release names no budget. - Topic: research-and-science - Decided by: Rice University (company) - Where: Harris - Statistical areas: - Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://news.rice.edu/news/2026/rice-launches-transformational-ai-initiative-faculty-hiring-new-programs-and-facilities - Last checked: 2026-10-23 ## Dates - 2026-10-13 · decided: Rice announces the initiative ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-10-20 · Admitted on the university's release, which gives no budget and no date for the remaining hires. - 2026-10-23 · Rice's release still sets out 40 more AI faculty hires toward 75 this decade and lab space at The Arc. It still names no budget and no date for the remaining hires. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### Rice is recruiting AI focused faculty across disciplines and investing in a new facility. > Rice University has launched a transformational universitywide AI initiative to recruit 75 faculty members working across disciplines, invest in a new, state-of-the-art facility that advances research and industry collaboration, and expand AI-related courses and degrees Source (primary_official): https://news.rice.edu/news/2026/rice-launches-transformational-ai-initiative-faculty-hiring-new-programs-and-facilities ### Rice has already hired 35 AI focused faculty in recent years. > Rice has already recruited 35 faculty members in recent years whose work centers on AI across several schools, marking the halfway point in the faculty hiring effort. Source (primary_official): https://news.rice.edu/news/2026/rice-launches-transformational-ai-initiative-faculty-hiring-new-programs-and-facilities ### Another 40 hires would bring the total this decade to 75. > An additional 40 faculty will bring the total number of AI-focused faculty hired this decade to 75. Source (primary_official): https://news.rice.edu/news/2026/rice-launches-transformational-ai-initiative-faculty-hiring-new-programs-and-facilities ### The new facility is The Arc in the Ion District, with a planned AI Foundry. > The Arc will include the planned AI Foundry, a place which is currently being developed where research scientists, industry leaders and partners, postdoctoral scholars and students can collaborate. Source (primary_official): https://news.rice.edu/news/2026/rice-launches-transformational-ai-initiative-faculty-hiring-new-programs-and-facilities ### A Master of Artificial Intelligence program launches in fall 2027. > In fall 2027, the school will launch a Master of Artificial Intelligence program for recent computer science graduates and working professionals with technical backgrounds. Source (primary_official): https://news.rice.edu/news/2026/rice-launches-transformational-ai-initiative-faculty-hiring-new-programs-and-facilities ### The Arc is scheduled to begin construction this fall, with Rice as a lead tenant. > The Arc at the Ion District is a nearly 200,000-square-foot research and innovation hub scheduled to begin construction in Houston’s Ion District this fall. Rice will be a lead tenant Source (primary_official): https://news.rice.edu/news/2026/rice-launches-transformational-ai-initiative-faculty-hiring-new-programs-and-facilities --- # Lockheed Martin brings Hadrian's 24 machine automated machining cell into its Grand Prairie missile parts plant Lockheed Martin announced on October 14th, 2026 that it is investing $300 million in its Grand Prairie operation and expanding it to more than 735,000 square feet. Hadrian will bring a highly automated machining cell of 24 machines into the plant. Lockheed's own production workforce will run it, and it is expected to be operational in early 2027. Hadrian describes its factories as combining process engineering, AI and robotics. Its software Opus interprets legacy designs and automates manufacturing and inspection. The release does not say what the AI does inside this cell. The plant supports the PAC-3 MSE, THAAD, PrSM and JATM programs. Nearly 800 production employees made 250,000 parts there in 2025. Lockheed says it plans 2,000 jobs in Texas. That figure is the company's own. - Topic: defense-and-federal - Decided by: Lockheed Martin (company) - Where: Dallas - Statistical areas: - Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2026-10-14-Lockheed-Martin-Expands-Advanced-Munitions-Manufacturing-in-Texas,-Driving-Thousands-of-New-American-Jobs - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-10-14 · decided: Lockheed Martin announces the expansion and the Hadrian cell ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-10-21 · Admitted on the company's release and a state filing that names the county. The cell is not running yet. No source says what its AI does. - 2026-10-24 · Lockheed Martin's plan for Hadrian's automated machining cell at the Grand Prairie plant still stands as announced. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### Lockheed Martin is investing $300 million in its Grand Prairie operation and expanding it to more than 735,000 square feet. > At the center of that growth is Lockheed Martin's Grand Prairie operation, where the company is investing $300 million and expanding its manufacturing footprint to more than 735,000 square feet. Source (primary_corporate): https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2026-10-14-Lockheed-Martin-Expands-Advanced-Munitions-Manufacturing-in-Texas,-Driving-Thousands-of-New-American-Jobs ### Hadrian will bring a highly automated machining cell to the Grand Prairie facility, run by Lockheed Martin's own production workforce. > The company also announced today that Hadrian will bring an innovative, highly automated machining cell to the Grand Prairie facility, operated by the world-class Lockheed Martin production workforce. Source (primary_corporate): https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2026-10-14-Lockheed-Martin-Expands-Advanced-Munitions-Manufacturing-in-Texas,-Driving-Thousands-of-New-American-Jobs ### The cell has 24 machines and is expected to be operational in early 2027. > Expected to be operational in early 2027, the 24-machine cell will bring commercial-style manufacturing technology directly into Lockheed Martin's production environment and add dedicated capacity for critical defense components. Source (primary_corporate): https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2026-10-14-Lockheed-Martin-Expands-Advanced-Munitions-Manufacturing-in-Texas,-Driving-Thousands-of-New-American-Jobs ### Lockheed Martin says it plans 6,000 jobs across the United States, 2,000 of them in Texas. > Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) today announced plans to create 6,000 jobs across the United States including 2,000 in Texas, as the company expands advanced manufacturing capacity to accelerate production of critical munitions. Source (primary_corporate): https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2026-10-14-Lockheed-Martin-Expands-Advanced-Munitions-Manufacturing-in-Texas,-Driving-Thousands-of-New-American-Jobs ### The Grand Prairie facility supports the Missiles and Fire Control programs, among them PAC-3 MSE, THAAD, PrSM and JATM. > Lockheed Martin's Grand Prairie facility supports all Missiles and Fire Control programs, including PAC-3 MSE, THAAD, PrSM and JATM. Source (primary_corporate): https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2026-10-14-Lockheed-Martin-Expands-Advanced-Munitions-Manufacturing-in-Texas,-Driving-Thousands-of-New-American-Jobs ### The company says it has installed more than 30 additional high precision machines in former office space in a few months. > In just a few months, the company has transformed former office space into advanced manufacturing areas and installed more than 30 additional high-precision machines now producing thousands of critical components each week. Source (primary_corporate): https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2026-10-14-Lockheed-Martin-Expands-Advanced-Munitions-Manufacturing-in-Texas,-Driving-Thousands-of-New-American-Jobs ### Lockheed Martin expects to have added nearly 100 new advanced machines across the facility by the end of 2026. > By the end of 2026, Lockheed Martin expects to have added nearly 100 new advanced machines across the facility. Source (primary_corporate): https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2026-10-14-Lockheed-Martin-Expands-Advanced-Munitions-Manufacturing-in-Texas,-Driving-Thousands-of-New-American-Jobs ### Nearly 800 production employees work at the facility, which made 250,000 parts in 2025. > Nearly 800 production employees currently work at the facility which manufactured 250,000 parts in 2025. Source (primary_corporate): https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2026-10-14-Lockheed-Martin-Expands-Advanced-Munitions-Manufacturing-in-Texas,-Driving-Thousands-of-New-American-Jobs ### Hadrian describes its own factories as combining process engineering, AI and robotics. > Hadrian is rebuilding America's industrial base with highly automated factories that combine process engineering, AI, and robotics. Source (primary_corporate): https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2026-10-14-Lockheed-Martin-Expands-Advanced-Munitions-Manufacturing-in-Texas,-Driving-Thousands-of-New-American-Jobs ### Hadrian's chief executive says the company is bringing the automation, software and workforce training from its own factories inside Lockheed Martin. > Hadrian is bringing the automation, software and workforce training from our own factories directly inside Lockheed Martin, so we can produce more, faster. Source (primary_corporate): https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2026-10-14-Lockheed-Martin-Expands-Advanced-Munitions-Manufacturing-in-Texas,-Driving-Thousands-of-New-American-Jobs ### The announcement follows a seven year agreement the two companies signed in 2025. > Today's announcement with Hadrian follows the signing of a seven-year agreement signed by both companies in 2025. Source (primary_corporate): https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2026-10-14-Lockheed-Martin-Expands-Advanced-Munitions-Manufacturing-in-Texas,-Driving-Thousands-of-New-American-Jobs ### Hadrian says its software, Opus, interprets legacy designs and automates manufacturing and inspection. > Opus interprets legacy designs and automates manufacturing and inspection Source (primary_corporate): https://www.hadrian.co/ ### A state accessibility filing places Lockheed Martin Missile and Fire Control at 1701 West Marshall Drive in Grand Prairie, in Dallas County. > Facility Name: Lockheed Martin Missile and Fire Control Location Address: 1701 West Marshall Drive Grand Prairie, TX 75051 Location County: Dallas Source (primary_official): https://www.tdlr.texas.gov/TABS/Search/Print/TABS2023008064 --- # Comptroller bars state grant money from buying or renewing Flock cameras and other license plate readers Texas Comptroller Don Huffines announced a ban on October 13th, 2026. State grant money may no longer buy or contract for Flock cameras, automated license plate readers and other vehicle identification systems. Those systems turn plate images into computer readable data. The restriction applies to all future grants the Comptroller's office administers. The agency says it will write it into grant solicitations and agreements. A grantee may not spend grant funds on the equipment or services, and may not enter into, extend or renew a contract for them. The release names Flock Safety, Motorola Solutions and Axon. It speaks only to grants the office administers and prints no count of the grants or dollars affected. - Topic: surveillance-and-policing - Decided by: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts (state-agency) - Where: Statewide - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/TXCOMPT/bulletins/42ee787 - Last checked: 2026-10-22 ## Dates - 2026-10-13 · decided: The Comptroller announces the ban on grant money for license plate readers ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-10-22 · Admitted on the Comptroller's own release, which sets out the ban and names the companies whose systems it covers. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The Comptroller announced a ban on using state grant money to buy or contract for Flock cameras, automated license plate readers and similar systems. > Texas Comptroller Don Huffines today announced a ban on the use of state grant money to buy or contract for Flock cameras, automated license plate readers, and other vehicle-identification systems that convert license plate images into computer-readable data. Source (primary_official): https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/TXCOMPT/bulletins/42ee787 ### The restriction applies to all future grants the Comptroller's office administers. > These requirements will apply to all future grants administered by the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. Source (primary_official): https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/TXCOMPT/bulletins/42ee787 ### The agency will put the restriction into its grant solicitations and agreements. > The agency will incorporate the restriction into all relevant grant solicitations and agreements going forward. Source (primary_official): https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/TXCOMPT/bulletins/42ee787 ### A grantee may not spend grant funds on the equipment or services, or enter, extend or renew a contract for them. > Under the ban, grantees may not obligate or expend grant funds to procure or obtain prohibited surveillance equipment or services, or to enter into, extend, or renew a contract to procure or obtain them. Source (primary_official): https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/TXCOMPT/bulletins/42ee787 ### The release names Flock Safety, Motorola Solutions and Axon among the companies whose systems are covered. > Flock Group Inc. (d/b/a "Flock Safety"), Motorola Solutions Inc., Axon Enterprise Inc., and their successors, affiliates, or resellers Source (primary_official): https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/TXCOMPT/bulletins/42ee787 --- # UTEP and El Paso Water test whether a NASA backed AI model can map flooded streets from satellite images after a storm The University of Texas at El Paso announced on October 8th, 2026 that a team led by Yong Je Kim has received nearly $500,000 from NASA. The money is for a two year project. It will combine satellite imagery, Earth observation data and artificial intelligence to map flooded areas of El Paso after storms. The team will use Prithvi-EO, an AI foundation model that reads the context around an area rather than single pixels. In El Paso wet pavement, building shadows and swimming pools can look like floodwater in a satellite image. Sentinel-1 radar fills in when clouds block the optical view. El Paso Water is the research partner and intended user, and the plan is a dashboard of flood maps, confidence information and infrastructure overlays. The team says the tool is not meant to replace crews on the ground. The project is expected to finish by June 2028, and no result has been published. - Topic: research-and-science - Decided by: The University of Texas at El Paso (state-agency) - Where: El Paso - Statistical areas: - El Paso, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://www.utep.edu/newsfeed/2026/October/from-space-to-the-streets-nasa-funded-research-takes-aim-at-el-paso-flooding.html - Last checked: 2026-10-22 ## Dates - 2026-10-08 · filed: Date the university published the account of the NASA award ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-10-22 · Admitted on the university's own release, which names the NASA award, the AI model and El Paso Water as the intended user. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### The team received nearly $500,000 from NASA for a two year project to map flooded areas of El Paso. > the research team has received nearly $500,000 from NASA for a two-year project that will combine satellite imagery, Earth observation data and artificial intelligence to rapidly map areas affected by flooding in El Paso. Source (primary_official): https://www.utep.edu/newsfeed/2026/October/from-space-to-the-streets-nasa-funded-research-takes-aim-at-el-paso-flooding.html ### The team will work with El Paso Water to see whether satellite data and AI can help crews find flooded areas and prioritize inspections. > The researchers will work with El Paso Water, the local water utility, to explore how advanced NASA satellite data and AI could help utility crews identify flooded areas, prioritize inspections and assess potentially affected infrastructure more quickly after a major storm. Source (primary_official): https://www.utep.edu/newsfeed/2026/October/from-space-to-the-streets-nasa-funded-research-takes-aim-at-el-paso-flooding.html ### The team will use Prithvi-EO, an AI foundation model that reads the context around an area rather than individual pixels. > The researchers will use NASA satellite imagery and Prithvi-EO, an advanced AI foundation model designed to analyze Earth observation data using the broader context surrounding an area rather than relying on individual pixels. Source (primary_official): https://www.utep.edu/newsfeed/2026/October/from-space-to-the-streets-nasa-funded-research-takes-aim-at-el-paso-flooding.html ### In El Paso wet pavement, building shadows and swimming pools can look like floodwater in satellite imagery. > That capability could be particularly useful in El Paso, where wet pavement, building shadows and even swimming pools can resemble floodwater in satellite imagery. Source (primary_official): https://www.utep.edu/newsfeed/2026/October/from-space-to-the-streets-nasa-funded-research-takes-aim-at-el-paso-flooding.html ### Sentinel-1 radar data supplies observations when clouds block the optical images. > The team will also combine optical satellite imagery with Sentinel-1 radar data, which can provide observations when clouds limit optical imagery. Source (primary_official): https://www.utep.edu/newsfeed/2026/October/from-space-to-the-streets-nasa-funded-research-takes-aim-at-el-paso-flooding.html ### El Paso Water is the research partner and intended end user. > El Paso Water will serve as a research partner and intended end user, helping the team ensure the technology addresses real operational needs. Source (primary_official): https://www.utep.edu/newsfeed/2026/October/from-space-to-the-streets-nasa-funded-research-takes-aim-at-el-paso-flooding.html ### The team says the tool is not meant to replace crews on the ground. > The technology is not intended to replace crews on the ground or existing emergency response procedures, the team said. Source (primary_official): https://www.utep.edu/newsfeed/2026/October/from-space-to-the-streets-nasa-funded-research-takes-aim-at-el-paso-flooding.html ### The project is expected to be completed by June 2028. > The project is expected to be completed by June 2028. Source (primary_official): https://www.utep.edu/newsfeed/2026/October/from-space-to-the-streets-nasa-funded-research-takes-aim-at-el-paso-flooding.html --- # UT Southwestern finds AI triage models moved some emergency patients who later got worse down the line after one stigmatizing detail was added UT Southwestern Medical Center reported on October 20th, 2026 a study published in npj Digital Medicine. Its researchers paired emergency patients of similar starting severity, using records from Stanford Medicine and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. Three open source large language models were asked which patient was more likely to deteriorate and should be seen first. Before any social or stigmatizing detail was added, all three picked the higher risk patient at rates well above chance. A line describing frequent emergency visits or past psychiatric emergencies most often moved a model away from the patient who later deteriorated. In some instances nearly 10% of patients were wrongly downgraded. The authors say bias varies by model and that each tool should be tested against real patient outcomes before use. No Texas hospital is reported using these models for triage. - Topic: health-and-education - Decided by: University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (state-agency) - Where: Dallas - Statistical areas: - Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://www.utsouthwestern.edu/newsroom/articles/year-2026/oct-ai-enabled-triage-tools-human-biases.html - Last checked: 2026-10-23 ## Dates - 2026-10-20 · filed: Date the medical center published its account of the study ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-10-23 · Admitted on the medical center's own account of the study. It names no Texas hospital using these models for triage, and the records came from hospitals in California and Massachusetts. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### UT Southwestern researchers reported the triage study in npj Digital Medicine. > researchers at UT Southwestern Medical Center reported in a study published in npj Digital Medicine Source (primary_official): https://www.utsouthwestern.edu/newsroom/articles/year-2026/oct-ai-enabled-triage-tools-human-biases.html ### The records came from emergency departments at Stanford Medicine and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. > The team analyzed patient records from emergency departments (EDs) at two major academic institutions: Stanford Medicine in California and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Massachusetts. Source (primary_official): https://www.utsouthwestern.edu/newsroom/articles/year-2026/oct-ai-enabled-triage-tools-human-biases.html ### Patients of similar starting severity were paired, and three open source models were asked who was more likely to deteriorate and who should be seen first. > They paired patients with similar initial condition severity levels, then asked three open-source AI large language models (LLMs) to predict which patients were more likely to deteriorate and who should be prioritized for care. Source (primary_official): https://www.utsouthwestern.edu/newsroom/articles/year-2026/oct-ai-enabled-triage-tools-human-biases.html ### Before any social or stigmatizing detail was added, all three models picked the higher risk patient at rates well above chance. > Before demographic, social, or potentially stigmatizing information was added, all three models identified higher-risk patients at rates well above chance. Source (primary_official): https://www.utsouthwestern.edu/newsroom/articles/year-2026/oct-ai-enabled-triage-tools-human-biases.html ### Details about frequent emergency visits or past psychiatric emergencies produced some of the strongest effects. > Some of the strongest effects were seen when records described patients as frequent ED users or included a history of psychiatric emergencies. Source (primary_official): https://www.utsouthwestern.edu/newsroom/articles/year-2026/oct-ai-enabled-triage-tools-human-biases.html ### In some instances nearly 10% of patients were wrongly downgraded after a stigmatizing detail was added. > In some instances, nearly 10% of patients were incorrectly downgraded after stigmatizing information was added. Source (primary_official): https://www.utsouthwestern.edu/newsroom/articles/year-2026/oct-ai-enabled-triage-tools-human-biases.html ### The first author says bias varies by model and each tool should be tested against real patient outcomes before use. > bias varies by model, so each AI tool should be tested against real patient outcomes before use Source (primary_official): https://www.utsouthwestern.edu/newsroom/articles/year-2026/oct-ai-enabled-triage-tools-human-biases.html --- # Texas A&M takes a $2 million WoodNext Foundation grant to build the Aggie AI Foundry, where AI and robots would design and test new metal alloys Texas A&M's Department of Materials Science and Engineering announced on October 22nd, 2026 a $2 million grant from the WoodNext Foundation. The money will build the Aggie AI Foundry, a campus facility meant to develop new metal alloys from idea to testing with AI and robotic arms. The university says the process would cut alloy development from months to a week or less. That is a goal and has not been measured. Its own researcher says no computational tool anywhere can predict how an alloy will behave, so the materials still have to be made and tested. No opening date is given. - Topic: research-and-science - Decided by: Texas A&M University (state-agency) - Where: Brazos - Statistical areas: - College Station-Bryan, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Write to the decider - Take part: https://news.engineering.tamu.edu/news/2026/10/22/texas-am-researchers-pursue-autonomous-ai-foundry/ - Last checked: 2026-10-23 ## Dates - 2026-10-22 · filed: Date the university published its account of the grant ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-10-23 · Admitted on the university's own account of the grant. It gives no opening date and no measured result, and the speed it names is a goal. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### A $2 million grant goes to Texas A&M's Department of Materials Science and Engineering. > a $2 million grant to Texas A&M University's Department of Materials Science and Engineering aims to revolutionize the manner and speed with which new metallic materials are discovered, developed and tested. Source (primary_official): https://news.engineering.tamu.edu/news/2026/10/22/texas-am-researchers-pursue-autonomous-ai-foundry/ ### The grant will create the Aggie AI Foundry, a fully automated system for developing new metal alloys with AI and robots. > will create the Aggie AI Foundry, a campus facility that will contain a fully automated system for developing novel metal alloys from idea generation through testing using AI brainpower and robotic workers. Source (primary_official): https://news.engineering.tamu.edu/news/2026/10/22/texas-am-researchers-pursue-autonomous-ai-foundry/ ### The university says the process will cut alloy development from months to a week or less. > The automated process will increase the rate at which metal alloys are developed from months to a week or less. Source (primary_official): https://news.engineering.tamu.edu/news/2026/10/22/texas-am-researchers-pursue-autonomous-ai-foundry/ ### Robotic arms will mix, melt and test the materials. > Robotics will mix, melt and test the materials for the desired qualities using computer-controlled arms that will work along an assembly line that takes samples of materials. Source (primary_official): https://news.engineering.tamu.edu/news/2026/10/22/texas-am-researchers-pursue-autonomous-ai-foundry/ ### The associate department head says no computational tool can predict how an alloy will behave. > there's no computational tool anywhere in the world that can predict how an alloy is going to behave Source (primary_official): https://news.engineering.tamu.edu/news/2026/10/22/texas-am-researchers-pursue-autonomous-ai-foundry/ --- # Tesla's own capacity table puts the Cybercab in production in Texas and lists the Texas Optimus robot line as still under construction Tesla published its update for the third quarter of 2026 on October 21st. It says the company began putting the Cybercab into its Robotaxi fleet in Austin. Its table of installed annual capacity lists the Cybercab in Texas at more than 125,000 a year and in production. Model Y in Texas stands at more than 375,000 and the Cybertruck at more than 125,000. The same table lists Optimus, the company's humanoid robot, in Texas as under construction. Production of the robot began on lines in Fremont in California. Tesla says installed capacity is not the current production rate. The update gives no count of Cybercabs built or carrying riders. It lists two AI training compute sites in Texas. Cortex 1 is listed at more than 105 megawatts and Cortex 2 at more than 120. The company says it kept building an Austin chip fab where it plans to start commissioning equipment in 2027. - Topic: state-policy - Decided by: Tesla, Inc. (company) - Where: Travis - Statistical areas: - Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX - Status: decided - Public access: Closed - Take part: https://assets-ir.tesla.com/tesla-contents/IR/TSLA-Q3-2026-Update.pdf - Last checked: 2026-10-24 ## Dates - 2026-10-21 · filed: Date Tesla published its update for the third quarter of 2026 ## How this decision moved One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not. - 2026-10-24 · Admitted on Tesla's own quarterly update. The capacity it lists is installed capacity, and the update itself says that is not output. ## Evidence Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own. ### Tesla says it began putting the Cybercab into its Robotaxi fleet in Austin. > We began deployment of Cybercab into our Robotaxi fleet in Austin. Source (primary_corporate): https://assets-ir.tesla.com/tesla-contents/IR/TSLA-Q3-2026-Update.pdf ### Tesla's table of installed annual manufacturing capacity lists the Cybercab in Texas at more than 125,000 a year, in production. > Cybercab >125,000 Production Source (primary_corporate): https://assets-ir.tesla.com/tesla-contents/IR/TSLA-Q3-2026-Update.pdf ### The same table lists Model Y in Texas at more than 375,000 a year, in production. > Texas Model Y >375,000 Production Source (primary_corporate): https://assets-ir.tesla.com/tesla-contents/IR/TSLA-Q3-2026-Update.pdf ### The same table lists the Cybertruck at more than 125,000 a year, in production. > Cybertruck >125,000 Production Source (primary_corporate): https://assets-ir.tesla.com/tesla-contents/IR/TSLA-Q3-2026-Update.pdf ### The table lists Optimus, Tesla's humanoid robot, in Texas as under construction. > Texas Optimus - Construction Source (primary_corporate): https://assets-ir.tesla.com/tesla-contents/IR/TSLA-Q3-2026-Update.pdf ### The table lists Optimus in California at early ramp. > California Optimus - Early Ramp Source (primary_corporate): https://assets-ir.tesla.com/tesla-contents/IR/TSLA-Q3-2026-Update.pdf ### Tesla says Optimus production began on its high volume lines in Fremont, California. > Optimus production began in Fremont on our high- volume lines. Source (primary_corporate): https://assets-ir.tesla.com/tesla-contents/IR/TSLA-Q3-2026-Update.pdf ### Tesla says construction in its table includes factory and infrastructure buildout and tool installation. > Construction includes factory and infrastructure buildout as well as tool installation. Source (primary_corporate): https://assets-ir.tesla.com/tesla-contents/IR/TSLA-Q3-2026-Update.pdf ### Tesla says its production rates depend on equipment uptime, component supply, factory upgrades, regulation and other factors. > Production rates depend on a variety of factors, including equipment uptime, component supply, downtime related to factory upgrades, regulatory considerations and other factors. Source (primary_corporate): https://assets-ir.tesla.com/tesla-contents/IR/TSLA-Q3-2026-Update.pdf ### Tesla lists Cortex 1 in Texas at more than 105 megawatts of AI training compute, in production. > Texas Cortex 1 >105 MW Production Source (primary_corporate): https://assets-ir.tesla.com/tesla-contents/IR/TSLA-Q3-2026-Update.pdf ### Tesla lists Cortex 2 at more than 120 megawatts of AI training compute, in production. > Cortex 2 >120 MW Production Source (primary_corporate): https://assets-ir.tesla.com/tesla-contents/IR/TSLA-Q3-2026-Update.pdf ### Tesla says it plans to reach 400 megawatts of training compute by the end of the year for vehicle and humanoid robot autonomy software. > We plan to reach 400 MW of SI training compute by the end of the year, supporting the development of both vehicle and humanoid robot autonomy software. Source (primary_corporate): https://assets-ir.tesla.com/tesla-contents/IR/TSLA-Q3-2026-Update.pdf ### Tesla says it continued building the Austin Fab and plans to start commissioning equipment there in 2027. > we continued construction for the Austin Fab, where we plan to start commissioning equipment in 2027. Source (primary_corporate): https://assets-ir.tesla.com/tesla-contents/IR/TSLA-Q3-2026-Update.pdf ### Tesla says its Robotaxi service reached nearly two million cumulative unsupervised miles by the end of the quarter. > We reached nearly two million cumulative unsupervised miles for our Robotaxi service as of the end of the quarter. Source (primary_corporate): https://assets-ir.tesla.com/tesla-contents/IR/TSLA-Q3-2026-Update.pdf ### Tesla says Robotaxi operating hours in Austin are now 6am to midnight. > Operating hours in Austin are now 6am to midnight Source (primary_corporate): https://assets-ir.tesla.com/tesla-contents/IR/TSLA-Q3-2026-Update.pdf ### Tesla says it began production at Megafactory Texas. > We began production at Megafactory Texas. Source (primary_corporate): https://assets-ir.tesla.com/tesla-contents/IR/TSLA-Q3-2026-Update.pdf ---