Big Data

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

Fort Bliss. Photo via army.mil

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.”

Trending News

A View From HETI

Exxon Mobil and Chevron made big profits in spring 2026. Photo via Chevron

American oil and gas giants raked in massive spring profits while fighting between Iran and the U.S. impeded petroleum shipments and consumers around the world paid more for fuel and confronted shortages.

The conflict, now in its sixth month, halted most shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway that previously served as a delivery route for a fifth of the world's oil and natural gas. With global supplies constrained, prices for Brent crude, the international standard, soared from about $70 to above $100 a barrel for much of March, April and May, and at one point reached $126.

The money that oil companies accrued between the beginning of April and the end of June could receive extra scrutiny this year. Gasoline, diesel and jet fuel prices climbed sharply during that period, increasing costs for drivers and airline passengers. Supplies ran low in some countries, leading to sporadic fuel rationing in Australia and government office closures in Nepal and Sri Lanka.

Spring, Texas-based Exxon Mobil reported that its second quarter profits doubled to $14.53 billion, boosted by record diesel production. The oil giant brought in $116.02 billion in revenue, up 42%.

Chevron, based in Houston, nearly quadrupled its profits to $12.07 billion and revenue jumped 56% to $70.06 billion.

Six of Europe’s largest oil companies posted combined first-quarter profits of $22 billion, more than 40% higher than last year.

“There are constituencies around the world who are having a very good crisis, and the oil producers are one of them,” said Patrick Galey, fossil fuels lead at Global Witness, a nonprofit organization that investigates environmental issues. “When you compare that to the hundreds of millions of people who are struggling with rolling blackouts, with electricity curbs, rationing, waiting in line for food queues, or the disruption to fertilizers and the potential impact that that has on food prices, we don’t think that it’s a justifiable price for the rest of the world to be paying.”

Lawmakers propose taxing major oil producers for war windfalls

Energy companies such as Exxon and Chevron do not set the price of American oil, which ricocheted from $68 to $115 a barrel during the quarter. It’s driven by supply and demand, and what traders, refiners and other buyers are willing to pay.

Nevertheless, Democrats in Congress introduced bills in March to tax major oil producers for profits they show from 2026 onward and have the tax proceeds redistributed to consumers.

“It’s fair to put a windfall profits tax on inordinate windfall profits rather than cut off children’s food programs,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat who introduced the Senate version of the legislation.

Whitehouse's measure and a companion bill introduced by U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna of California would amend the U.S. tax code to impose a per-barrel tax on companies that produced or imported at least 300,000 barrels of oil per day in 2025.

“We cracked $4 again per gallon last weekend in gas stations that I drove by, and that’s a big expense, particularly for families that get their income from driving around from job to job in the work van or the work truck,” Whitehouse said.

The average price for a gallon of regular gasoline in the U.S., which was below $3 before the U.S. and Israel launched attacks on Iran, reached $4.11 Friday, July 31, about $1 more than last year at this time.

The UK and other European countries implemented temporary windfall profits taxes on fossil fuel companies in 2022. The UK extended that to 2030, according to Tax Foundation Europe.

“Penalizing the businesses who stood by those countries and provided that product going forward is very short-sighted,” Exxon CEO Darren Woods said in a call with investors Friday. “We canceled investments that we had planned for Europe based on the last time they passed a windfall profits tax.”

Refineries rake in cash while consumers pay more for fuel

Outfits such as Exxon and Chevron, which also own refineries, are in the best position to profit from the current market conditions, said Tom Seng, assistant professor of energy finance at Texas Christian University.

Refineries turn oil into gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and home heating oil. Higher prices for those products meant Chevron’s quarterly refinery profit was six times as big in 2026, despite processing less crude and selling less products.

“The return on refining, on a percentage basis, has skyrocketed,” Seng said. “Oil right now is priced what it is priced because of the Iran war. But in the meantime, the refineries are making money hand over fist.”

The global refining market is under-supplied, and with countries such as Russia and China no longer exporting, companies like Exxon and Chevron have to pick it up, said Rob Thummel, senior portfolio manager at Tortoise Capital. “The world is going to be short jet fuel, diesel and gasoline, so we’ll probably continue to see higher profits there.”

Globally, not all refineries have been able to get the supply of crude oil they need to meet demand since the conflict began, said Timothy Fitzgerald, a University of Tennessee professor of business economics who studies the petroleum industry.

As a result, refineries that have ample oil to work with, including those in the U.S., are turning high profits, particularly when they make jet fuel and diesel, which is priced about 41% higher in the U.S. than before the Strait of Hormuz was blocked.

"If you’re a company that owns a bunch of refinery capacity, things look pretty good," Fitzgerald said.

American refineries are running at near-full capacity and poised to benefit because some refineries in the Middle East and Russia were damaged. And Asia can't get the amount of Middle East oil needed for refining.

“Ultimately, users of the energy services pay,” Fitzgerald said. “Consumers, people like you and me buying retail motor gasoline or diesel fuel or airplane tickets. But it also means that almost everything else we buy has an embedded energy content to it ... and this is where you start to worry about it driving increases in costs.”

Not all oil and gas companies benefit in the same way

In the present geopolitical environment, some companies are winners while others are losers, Fitzgerald said.

“If you’re a company like a U.S. (oil) producer, even a U.S.-based international company like an Exxon or Chevron who’s got lots of production outside the Gulf, things are good. You’re selling your product at a higher price,” he said.

But companies in the Middle East that are not able to benefit from higher prices because they are struggling to get their liquefied natural gas out of the Persian Gulf or have a lot of damaged oil fields or processing facilities have a very different take on recent events, Fitzgerald added.

“Your ability to sell anything and the volume that you may be getting out is so curtailed that your revenues are way down and you’re incurring higher transportation costs and security costs,” he said.

Exxon and Chevron weren’t as profitable in the first quarter due to the way oil is traded; the first real opportunity they had to take advantage of higher prices oil was in April. Companies that had a lot of oil stored in floating tankers and available for spot-market trading, including some European ones, were able to benefit from March’s higher oil prices, Seng said.

Trending News