ADVERTISEABOUT USSUBMIT A STORYSUBSCRIBETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICY
Visit our family of Brands

Houston analyst named energy and geopolitics chair at national think tank

moving up

Clay Seigle has joined the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Photo by Douglas Rissing. Courtesy of Getty Images.

Houston-based energy industry analyst Clay Seigle has joined the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) as a senior fellow and the James R. Schlesinger Chair for Energy and Geopolitics in the Energy Security and Climate Change (ESCC) Program.

“I’m honored to join CSIS as Senior Fellow and the James R. Schlesinger Chair for Energy and Geopolitics,” Seigle said in a news release. “In a time of unprecedented change in global energy markets, CSIS is uniquely positioned to advance policies that promote security, resilience, and innovation. I look forward to working alongside Joseph (Majkut, director of the Energy Security and Climate Change Program) and our outstanding colleagues to deliver impactful research and expand CSIS’s engagement with stakeholders in Washington and Houston.”

Seigle most recently served as director of Global Oil at Rapidan Energy Group, a D.C.-based independent energy analysis firm. At REG, he provided expert analysis on oil market forecasts and geopolitical scenarios to government and private sector stakeholders. He has also held leadership and analysis roles at organizations including Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA), the U.S. Department of Energy, Enron and others. He specializes in market intelligence, global energy security and political risk.

Seigle is a board member of the Houston Committee on Foreign Relations and chairs its Finance Committee. He is also a former vice president of the U.S. Association for Energy Economics. He holds a master’s degree in international relations (Middle East) and economics from Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies and a bachelor’s degree in government from the University of Texas at Austin.

The ESCC’s work has focused on developing diverse energy resources for the U.S. and providing leaders with insights on how to address challenges like climate change. According to CSIS, the ESCC program recently launched an Economic Security and Technology Department that aims to tackle topics like using artificial intelligence to maintain energy security.

“Our longstanding energy program is a centerpiece of our department’s work on the drivers of U.S. economic security in an era of technology competition,” Navin Girishankar, president of the CSIS Economic Security and Technology Department, said in a news release. “Clay’s deep understanding of energy markets and energy security will be an asset to CSIS leadership on these issues in the years to come. We are delighted that he is joining our team at a critical time for U.S. economic security policy.”

Nuclear could be a powerful tool to address rising greenhouse-gas emissions. But to get there, the industry needs to raise its game. Photo via Pexels

Houston expert explains what’s needed to bend the curve on nuclear power

guest column

I argued previously that nuclear power can help the world deal with two related challenges: energy security and climate change. I still think that is the case.

McKinsey & Company, where I worked for more than 30 years, also recently turned to the topic. The authors agreed that nuclear can play a significant role in decarbonization, and noted that there were some encouraging trends, even in markets, such as the United States, where new plants are thin on the ground. And then the authors asked a critical question: “Can the industry reverse the trend of exceeding budgets and timelines while scaling up fast enough to rise to the climate challenge?”

That query got me thinking. To me, the case for nuclear is clear and compelling. Given that electricity demand could triple by 2050, the need for low-emission and constant power is acute. Nuclear fits that bill. Other sources either emit much more (coal, gas, oil) or are intermittent (wind, solar). Little new hydro is being built. Nothing else is at anything like scale.

But clearly, nuclear has not carried the day, particularly in Europe, Japan, and the United States. These markets are, at best, wary of nuclear power. They are willing to invest some money in next-generation technologies or maybe to extend an operating license. But they are not doing much about the conditions that make new construction so costly and difficult.

For that to happen, I think we need to go deeper—to change mindsets among two very different sets of players.

Anti-nuclear green activists. As the Rolling Stones wisely noted, “You can’t always get what you want.” To deal with something as complicated and wide-ranging as climate change, there will be trade-offs. But if you want reliable power and lower emissions and if you don’t want thousands of square miles of land coated with wind and solar farms, something has to give.

Consider France. It gets more than two-thirds of its power from nuclear, which is a huge part of the reason it ranks 60th in the world in per capita carbon-dioxide emissions (4.46 tons), a much better performance than global peers like Japan (8.5), Belgium (8.1), Germany (7.9), and Austria (7.3). Those four countries have all dialed back on nuclear. Here is the Austrian energy minister, Leonore Gewessler: “The attempt to declare nuclear energy as sustainable and renewable must be resolutely opposed.”

If the goal is to reduce emissions, though, why should that be the case? Well, one response is that championing nuclear power could reduce investment in renewables. But again, if the goal is to reduce emissions, then why not embrace technologies that do exactly that? Whether nuclear can be considered “renewable” seems to me to be almost a theological question, not a technical one. And certainly not a useful one. The goal should not be X or Y percent of renewables, but how to promote an energy transition that delivers reliable, low-emission power. Somehow that point is lost, or dismissed. Instead, major environmental groups such as the Sierra Club (“unequivocally opposed”), Greenpeace (“say no to new nukes”), the Climate Action Network Europe, the European Environmental Bureau (“We advocate for an exit from nuclear energy”) and so on don’t see a place for nuclear.

The mindset shift needed among these and other green groups is to see nuclear as one component of a diversified energy system that can be part of the climate solution, and then to turn their considerable power and creativity toward convincing the public. I just don’t see how shutting down nuclear plants before their time, and replacing them with higher-emissions sources, as is often the case, helps to reduce emissions.

I am not holding my breath on this, but stranger things have happened. Heck, nuclear has found an unlikely advocate in film-maker Oliver Stone. His new documentary, “Nuclear,” argues that the public “has been trained, from the very beginning, to fear nuclear power. The very thing that we fear is what may save us.”

Nuclear could be a powerful tool to address rising greenhouse-gas emissions. But to get there, the industry needs to raise its game. Stone’s nuclear-could-save-us scenario would be likelier if the industry made a better case for itself. Not in safety or reliability, where its record is remarkably good, but in frustration and economics. The stereotype of huge delays and budget over-runs is no myth. Georgia is the only US state building plants, and they are both running years and billions beyond the initial projections.

Granted, some things are beyond the industry’s control: legal challenges plus complex and shifting regulation add up. Some countries clearly do better than others on this. South Korea, for example, gets a third of its power from nuclear, is building three more plants, and is expanding its export market. It will be interesting to see if it could develop something like a nuclear assembly line that drives down its costs, which are already much lower than in the United States.

Like any other sector, nuclear needs to excel at competitiveness, cost control, and innovation—and it hasn’t. In the United States, the typical template has been to build really big plants, each unique, and each very expensive because of the size. The McKinsey report noted a number of things that the industry itself could do better, such as learning and applying best practices for large-scale projects; establishing standard designs; and using modular construction techniques. US construction productivity has stagnated for decades; the use of digitization and automation could help.

There are reasons to believe that the industry is improving. A cluster of companies is developing smaller, salt-cooled reactors; these are cheaper and safer. In January 2023, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission certified NuScale’s small modular reactor that uses natural water circulation, obviating the need for pumps and thus lowering capital costs. Compared to the 1,000 MW Georgia plants, NuScale’s are about 77MW, but can be added onto. No such plants have been built yet in the United States, though; advanced fission and fusion are even further away. So at the moment, this is all about potential. As one Department of Energy official put it, “It becomes truly real when electrons go on the grid.”

McKinsey concluded: “We believe a nuclear scale-up is achievable. It’s time for the industry to meet the challenge.” I agree,

Nuclear could be a powerful tool to address rising greenhouse-gas emissions. But to get there, the industry needs to raise its game. And it could use a little help from its enemies.

------

Scott Nyquist is a senior advisor at McKinsey & Company and vice chairman, Houston Energy Transition Initiative of the Greater Houston Partnership. The views expressed herein are Nyquist's own and not those of McKinsey & Company or of the Greater Houston Partnership. This article originally ran on LinkedIn.

Students from the University of Houston are celebrating a win at a national competition focused on carbon innovation. Photo via UH.edu

University of Houston team places in prestigious DOE collegiate challenge

top of class

A team of students from the University of Houston have placed in the top three teams for a national competition for the Department of Energy.

The inaugural American-Made Carbon Management Collegiate Competition, hosted by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, or FECM, tasked the student teams with "proposing regional carbon networks capable of transporting at least one million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year from industrial sources," according to a news release from DOE.

“With this competition, DOE hopes to inspire the next generation of carbon management professionals to develop carbon dioxide transport infrastructure that will help drive technological innovation and emissions reductions, new regional economic development, and high-wage employment for communities across the United States,” Brad Crabtree, assistant secretary of fossil energy and carbon management at DOE, says in the release.

GreenHouston, the University of Houston team mentored by Assistant Professor Jian Shi from the UH Cullen College of Engineering, took third place in the competition, securing a $5,000 cash prize. Sequestration Squad of University of Michigan secured first place and $12,000 and Biggest Little Lithium of the University of Nevada won second and a $8,000 prize.

The UH team's proposal was for an optimized carbon dioxide transportation pipeline for the Houston area. The presentation included cost analysis, revenue potential, safety considerations, weather hazards, and social impact on neighboring communities, according to a release from UH.

“We chose the greater Houston metropolitan area as our target transition area because it is a global hub of the hydrocarbon energy industry,” says Fatemeh Kalantari, team leader, in the release.

“Our team was committed to delivering an optimized and cost-effective carbon dioxide transfer plan in the Houston area, with a focus on safety, environmental justice, and social engagement,” she continues. “Our goal is to ensure the health and safety of the diverse population residing in Houston by mitigating the harmful effects of carbon dioxide emissions from refineries and industries in the area, thus avoiding environmental toxicity.”

With the third place win, GreenHouston will get to present their proposal at DOE’s annual Carbon Management Research Project Review Meeting slated for August.

"We are thrilled to see the exceptional work and dedication displayed by the GreenHouston team in this competition," said Ramanan Krishnamoorti, vice president of energy and innovation at UH. "The team’s innovative proposal exemplifies UH’s commitment to addressing the pressing global issue of carbon management and advancing sustainable practices. We wish the students continued success."

The team included four Cullen College of Engineering doctoral students from the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering – Kalantari, Massiagbe Diabate, Steven Chen, and Simon Peter Nsah Abongmbo – and one student, Bethel O. Mbakaogu, pursuing his master’s degree in supply chain and logistics technology.

The prize money will go toward funding additional research, refining existing technologies, addressing remaining challenges and raising awareness of CCUS and its project, according to the release, as the team feels a responsibility to continue to work on the GreenHouston project.

“The energy landscape by 2050 will be characterized by reduced greenhouse gas emissions, cleaner air quality, and a more sustainable environment,” Kalantari says. “The transition to green energy will not only mitigate the harmful effects of carbon dioxide on climate change but also create new jobs, promote economic growth, and enhance energy security. This is important, and we want to be part of it.”

The team of students plans to continue to work on the GreenHouston project. Photo courtesy

------

This article originally ran on InnovationMap.

There's no silver bullet for clean energy. We need an all-hands-on-deck approach, writes Scott Nyquist. Photo via Getty Images

Houston expert: When it comes to the future of energy and climate, think 'all of the above'

guest column

People in the energy industry don’t have the Oscars. For us, the big event of the year is CERAWeek — a conference stuffed with CEOs, top policymakers, and environmental and energy wonks held annually in March.

CERAWeek 2022, with the theme“Pace of Change: Energy, Climate, and Innovation," meant the return of in-person activations, panels, and networking. Walking and talking between sessions and around the coffee table, it occurred to me that the unofficial theme of the event was “Maybe now we can find middle ground on energy.” This idea came up time and time again, from all kinds of people.

As with too many other issues, the discussion of the future of US energy has become polarized. On one end of the spectrum are those who want everything renewable and/or electrified by ….. last week, whatever the cost. Their mantra for fossil fuels: “Keep them in the ground.”

On the other end, are those who dismiss climate change, saying we can always adapt and that it doesn’t much matter, anyway. Just keep digging and drilling and mining as we have always done. And in the middle are the great majority of Americans who are not passionate either way, but want to be responsible consumers, and also to be able to visit grandma without breaking the bank.

I believe that the transition toward an energy system that is cleaner and less reliant on fossil fuels is realand will ultimately bring substantial benefits. At the same time, I believe that energy security and economics also matter. At a time when inflation was already running high, paying an average of $4.25 a gallon at the pump is piling pain on tens of millions of US households. Ultimately, over decades, the use of electric vehicles will reduce the need for oil and that lower-emissions sources, including renewables, will provide a larger share of the power supply, which today depends largely on gas and coal. But that moment is not now, or next week. Indeed, fossil fuels continue to account for almost 80 percent of US primary energy consumption, and a similar figure globally.

Here is one way to think about the interplay between the energy transition and energy security: “We need an energy strategy for the future—an all-of-the-above strategy for the 21st century that develops every source of American-made energy.” No, that isn’t some apologist for Big Oil; it was President Obama. In 2014, the Obama White House also noted the role of US domestic oil and gas production in enhancing economic resilience and reducing vulnerability to oil shocks. In short, the White House argued, US oil and gas production can bring real benefits for the country. I think that is still true.

Does that mean throwing in the towel on the energy transition and climate change? Absolutely not. There are a variety of ways to pursue the goal of reducing emissions and eventually getting to net-zero emissions. I’ve touched on many of them in previous posts—including reducing methane emissions,pricing carbon, hydrogen, renewables, electric vehicles, urban planning, carbon capture, and negative emissions technologies. In other words, an “all of the above strategy” makes sense in this regard, too.

I don’t know how, or if, a middle ground can be captured. But from what I heard at CERAWeek last year, from people of otherwise widely divergent views, there just may be momentum to get there. A middle-ground consensus rests on three premises. First, we need fossil fuels for energy security and reliability now and until the time when technologies are in place to secure the energy transition. Second, at the same time, we need to be investing in the energy transition because climate change is real and matters. And third, for sustained and systematic progress, government and industry need to work together.

Or, in a phrase, “all of the above.”

------

Scott Nyquist is a senior advisor at McKinsey & Company and vice chairman, Houston Energy Transition Initiative of the Greater Houston Partnership. The views expressed herein are Nyquist's own and not those of McKinsey & Company or of the Greater Houston Partnership. This article originally ran on LinkedIn.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Property Showcase

Oxy officially announces CEO transition, names successor

new leader

Houston-based Occidental (Oxy) has officially announced its longtime CEO's retirement and her successor.

Oxy shared last week that Vicki Hollub will retire June 1. Reuters first reported Hollub's plan to retire in March, but a firm date had not been set. Hollub will remain on Oxy's board of directors.

Richard Jackson, who currently serves as Oxy's COO, will replace Hollub in the CEO role.

“It has been a privilege to lead Occidental and work alongside such a talented team for more than 40 years," Hollub shared in a news release. "Following the recently completed decade-long transformation of the company, we now have the best portfolio and the best technical expertise in Occidental’s history. With this strong foundation in place, a clear path forward and a leader like Richard, who has the experience and vision to elevate Occidental, now is the right time for this transition. “I look forward to supporting Richard and the Board through my continued role as a director.”

Hollub has held the top leadership position at Oxy since 2016 and has been with the energy giant for more than 40 years. Before being named CEO, she served as COO and senior executive vice president at the company. She led strategic acquisitions of Anadarko Petroleum in 2019 and CrownRock in 2024, and was the first woman selected to lead a major U.S. oil and gas company.

Hollub also played a key role in leading Oxy's future as a "carbon management company."

Jackson has been with Oxy since 2003. He has held numerous leadership positions, including president of U.S. onshore oil and gas, president of low carbon integrated technologies, general manager of the Permian Delaware Basin and enhanced oil recovery oil and gas, vice president of investor relations, and vice president of drilling Americas.

He was instrumental in launching Oxy Low Carbon Ventures, which focuses DAC, carbon sequestration and low-carbon fuels through businesses like 1PointFive, TerraLithium and others, according to the company. He also serves on the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative’s Climate Investment Board and the American Petroleum Institute’s Upstream Committee. He holds a bachelor's degree in petroleum engineering from Texas A&M University.

Jackson was named COO of Oxy in October 2025. In his new role as CEO, he will also join the board of directors, effective June 1.

“I am grateful to be appointed President and CEO of Occidental and excited about the opportunity to execute from the strong position and capabilities that we built under Vicki’s leadership,” Jackson added in the release. “It means a lot to me personally to be a part of our Occidental team. I am committed to delivering value from our significant and high-quality resource base. We have a tremendous opportunity to focus on organic improvement and execution to deliver meaningful value for our employees, shareholders and partners.”

Texas data center proposed by U.S. Army could use more power than El Paso

Big Data

The U.S. Army is proposing developing a gargantuan, 3-gigawatt data center complex on Fort Bliss property that within a few years would consume more electricity than all of El Paso Electric’s 460,000 customers combined – even as questions about its development, water usage and air pollution remain unanswered.

If built, it would be the third major data center project in the El Paso region, along with Meta Platform’s $10 billion facility in Northeast and the $165 billion Project Jupiter campus that Oracle and OpenAI are building in Santa Teresa, New Mexico. The combined scale and size of the three facilities could quickly transform the Borderland into one of the nation’s core hubs of power generation and AI infrastructure.

The publicly-traded investment firm Carlyle Group would pay to build and operate the Fort Bliss data center – one of several planned in a national rollout under President Donald Trump’s administration to rapidly increase artificial intelligence technology for the Department of Defense.

At Fort Bliss, the Army is “targeting an initial operating capacity of about 100 megawatts on the compute side” by next year, David Fitzgerald, deputy undersecretary of the Army, said during a meeting with reporters April 22. An official estimated cost for the project has yet to be released.

By 2029, the complex on military land in far East El Paso would require 3 gigawatts of electricity, Fitzgerald said. By comparison, El Paso Electric currently maintains about 2.9 gigawatts of generation capacity across its entire system that spans from Hatch, New Mexico, to Van Horn, Texas. The highest customer demand the power company has ever seen was just over 2.3 gigawatts during the summer of 2023.

And whether most El Pasoans are on board with the rapid buildout of another data center here is not a question that Army leadership is asking at this point.

“What we’re trying to do is find where are the common interests, common ground that we can solve for?” Fitzgerald said, referring to coordinating with El Paso city leaders on the data center project.

“The state of modern warfare and future warfare is largely going to depend on the ability to capture, process and utilize massive amounts of data,” he said. “So, the reality is, this is a strategic priority, not just for the Army, but for the entire Department of War. So, we need these capabilities, and we need to put them somewhere.”

Combined-cycle natural gas turbines are the “most likely” source of electricity generation for the facility, said Jeff Waksman, an assistant secretary of the Army and former member of Trump’s first administration.

Waksman said the facility would undergo environmental review before construction starts.

Still, there are far more outstanding questions than answers about the proposed Fort Bliss data center.

It’s unclear if the facility would connect to El Paso Water’s water system. The city-owned water utility pointed out that Fort Bliss Water provides water service for the installation. However, El Paso Water can provide “backup” service to the base, according to the project solicitation documents.

“EPWater was just recently brought into the discussion, and we only have preliminary information,” El Paso Water said in a statement. “The construction and water use would be entirely on federal property.”

El Paso Electric said it’s also uncertain whether the data center will connect to the utility’s power grid and will figure that out in the future. To date, the Army hasn’t made a formal request for service from El Paso Electric.

Officials from the U.S. Army “confirmed that questions regarding the power source and whether it will be connected to the regional grid remain under review and have plans to establish a data center with a projected demand of 3 gigawatts,” El Paso Electric said in a statement. “Ultimately, decisions about these matters will be made by Fort Bliss leadership, and we defer to them for further comment.”

A representative with Carlyle Group at a recent community meeting didn’t answer questions or provide details about the proposed data center facility and the related power generation source.

Carlyle Group did not respond to a request for comment.

Army officials said they don’t yet have a definitive agreement in place with Carlyle, which was conditionally selected to enter into exclusive negotiations, so few details are finalized.

However, the Army has set a short timeline to start operating by late 2027. That means construction will have to start soon, Fitzgerald said.

“The ideal endstate is that we would be at least (operational) by the end of ’27, which is moving pretty quick,” Fitzgerald said. “That would mean construction would need to begin in the not-so-distant future.”

Water, electricity concerns

Meeting three gigawatts of electricity demand with natural gas-fired turbines – cited by Army officials as the most likely power source – would likely produce huge amounts of greenhouse gases in a central area of El Paso, such as carbon dioxide, as well as other harmful pollutants including particulate matter.

And even if the data center doesn’t take service from El Paso Water and instead receives water from wells managed by Fort Bliss, it would rely on groundwater pumped out of the Hueco Bolson aquifer, the city’s main source of water.

The solicitation issued by the Army cites water risk for El Paso as “extremely high” and notes that most of Fort Bliss’ water supply comes from wells within the installation.

Fitzgerald said the Army is aware of the public’s concern that the data center could unsustainably guzzle El Paso’s groundwater to cool the data center’s computer servers. He said the facility will be “water neutral.”

It’s also not clear how the project could replace the same amount of water that it consumes.

It’s possible the Kay Bailey Hutchison Desalination Plant – co-owned by El Paso Water and the U.S. Army – could play a role in making the data center water neutral. But El Paso Water said it has no details about how the data center facility could achieve water neutrality.

El Paso Water is “more than willing to continue to share ideas for best practices in sustainability to help protect our regional water resources,” the utility said in its statement.

As far as electricity generation, Army officials said they don’t know if El Paso Electric would build a new power plant to serve the data center. It’s also possible that Carlyle Group or another private company could build its own power generation source for the data center that’s isolated from the power grid El Pasoans use every day.

“We have to decide whether El Paso Electric is going to be the ones building whatever is coming, or if this is going to be some independent power producer,” Waksman said.

El Paso Electric is planning to develop a 366 megawatt power plant made up of over 800 small gas generators to power Meta’s data center. The utility will build more generation in the coming years to meet 1 gigawatt of total demand from Meta’s facility. Meanwhile, as the technology giant Oracle develops Project Jupiter, the company said Monday it is seeking to power the campus using 2.45 gigawatts of fuel cell power systems provided by the company Bloom Energy.

For perspective, 3.45 gigawatts – the combined projected demand of those two major data centers – is enough electricity to power as many as a million homes, depending on the time of day and weather.

The Fort Bliss project would have to meet environmental regulatory requirements, and the developer needs to include a plan for providing utilities and infrastructure needs such as access to the facility, according to a request for proposals issued by the Army in December 2025. Army officials emphasized the project would not impact El Pasoans’ water or electric bills.

Who is Carlyle Group?

Carlyle Group is a global investment management firm that oversees $477 billion of assets from entities such as pension funds.

The company invests that money by buying businesses ranging from wine producers to Asian telecommunications companies, or by developing infrastructure projects such as renewable energy generation and data centers. The company in 2025 posted distributable earnings of nearly $1.7 billion on $4.8 billion in revenue.

The Army wants to build the facility at Fort Bliss in partnership with Carlyle because the installation has a large amount of available, unused land and because of the water and electricity infrastructure already in place in El Paso, Fitzgerald said.

The Carlyle data center planned for El Paso is part of a wider U.S. military effort to quickly build infrastructure that supports the use of artificial intelligence — both on the battlefield and in running its day-to-day operations, according to government documents.

Army officials nodded to the use of AI in drone warfare and targeting systems. And a hyperscale data center facility can also securely house information such as the military’s cloud database that details pay and entitlements for every U.S. soldier, said Maj. Gen. Curtis Taylor, commanding general of the 1st Armored Division and Fort Bliss.

Data centers are “essential parts of power projection,” Taylor said. “But we have to protect those servers. And that’s why there’s great utility in building that infrastructure on military installations.”

The Fort Bliss facility would be located on a plot of land near the intersection of Loop 375 and Montana Avenue. The site is just east of the Camp East Montana immigrant detention facility, and near El Paso Electric’s gas-fired Montana power station.

The plan is for Carlyle to utilize the majority of the data center’s capacity for its business needs, and the military would have access to a more secure portion of the data center for its own uses.

The Army is developing another similar data center project in Dugway, Utah. Other Army bases identified as potential sites include Fort Hood in Texas and Fort Bragg in North Carolina.

The U.S. Air Force in October issued a solicitation saying it is “accepting proposals for the development of Artificial Intelligence data centers,” on unused land at different bases, including in California, Georgia, Arizona and Tennessee. The push was enabled by executive orders signed by Trump that seek to speed up permitting and development timelines for AI data centers.

Would the Fort Bliss data center pay taxes?

A privately-financed data center on Fort Bliss would likely have to pay some taxes – unlike on-base government facilities – but there’s a lot of uncertainty.

Carlyle Group is leasing the land for the data center under an “enhanced use lease” that allows branches of the military to rent under-used land on bases.

Land on federal installations is not subject to state or local taxes. However, the statute that authorizes the U.S. military to lease excess land to private entities says that “the interest of a lessee of property leased under this section may be taxed by State or local governments.”

So, while the land the data center is built on would not be subject to taxation, the structures housing the data center could be subject to local property taxes.

But it depends on how the deal is structured, including factors such as whether Carlyle or the Army ultimately takes ownership of the buildings.

The Army in January awarded a contract to Korean-owned Hanwha Defense USA, which will invest $1.3 billion to develop a munitions factory at a base in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, using an enhanced use lease.

Fitzgerald, the Army undersecretary, acknowledged the public pushback to other data centers such as Meta and Project Jupiter. But he said the Army wants to ensure the project is developed “the right way.”

“There are always elements that will kind of make this an ‘us versus them’ sort of a construct, but I don’t think we view it that way from the Army,” he said. “I think there’s a path here that will benefit not just the installation, but the community as well.”

CenterPoint launches real-time tracker to map Houston’s power grid upgrades

resiliency plan

Houstonians can now track electronic infrastructure improvements via CenterPoint’s new Community Progress Tracker, part of the company’s ongoing Greater Houston Resiliency Initiative.

The tracker allows users to search by zip code and see completed work in real time, as well as updates on upcoming projects that highlight infrastructure improvements and efforts to strengthen the power grid in the face of extreme weather. Users can view icons on a map that track automation and intelligence projects, storm-resilient pole and equipment installations, undergrounding work and tree trimmings.

CenterPoint had installed 10,000 storm-resilient poles, cleared 1,600 miles of higher-risk vegetation, completed 99 miles of power line undergrounding and hardened 220 miles of power lines by the end of Q1 2026, according to the company.

For the rest of 2026, CenterPoint aims to install 35,000 stronger, storm-resilient poles, clear high-risk vegetation from 8,000 miles of power lines and harden 500 transmission structures against storms.

Via centerpointenergy.com

“We are proud of the progress made in 2025, which helped deliver more than 100 million fewer outage minutes when compared to 2024, and we are determined to make even more progress in 2026 as we work toward our defining goal: building the nation's most resilient coastal grid,” Nathan Brownell, CenterPoint's vice president of resilience and capital delivery, said in a news release. “To date, we are ahead of schedule in making critical 2026 GHRI improvements, and we will continue to build the stronger, smarter infrastructure necessary to further improve systemwide reliability and strengthen resiliency, reducing the likelihood and impact of outages for our customers.”
View All Listings