We filed our comment opposing Project Jupiter's air pollution permit applications seeking permission to emit more than 13 million tons of climate warming emissions per year
- Mar 2
- 7 min read
Today New Energy Economy formally filed our public comment on the two deceptive, so called "Micro" grid, applications filed by Acoma LLC to power Project Jupiter with a giant methane gas plant that would emit more climate destroying emissions than Albuquerque, Santa Fe and Las Cruces combined, along with hundreds of tons of additional toxic air pollutants and particulates in a community already suffering under the consequences of elevated ozone and nitrogen oxides from oil and gas extraction.
Our comment reads:
We submit this comment in opposition to Air Quality Construction Permit Applications 10732 (East Microgrid) and 10734 (West Microgrid) proposed by Acoma, LLC in southern Doña Ana County. As described below, these applications are unlawfully and deceptively designed to evade critical public health protections and, if approved, would result in significant air pollution and destructive climate impacts that will harm all New Mexicans. The New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) must reject both applications and require the Applicant (Acoma LLC) to submit a single, accurate permit that fully accounts for the Project’s true pollution impacts.
1. The Project Is a Single Pollution Source and Must Be Permitted as One
The Applicant has improperly divided a single gas-fired power project into two permits to avoid stricter air quality requirements. The East and West Microgrids:
Are under common ownership and control
Are located less than one mile apart
Serve the same facility
Fall under the same industrial classification
Under EPA[1] and NMED[2] rules, these facts require treatment as one stationary source. When combined, emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM), and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) exceed major source thresholds, triggering stronger pollution controls and review. Artificially splitting the Project unlawfully circumvents these protections, and failure to apply NMED rules in this case would be arbitrary and capricious and make the permits subject to reversal on appeal.[3]
Even if the applicants’ numbers are taken at face value, when added together emissions of hazardous pollutants far exceed major source thresholds:
Pollutant | East Claimed totals: (tons per yr) | West claimed totals: (tons per yr) | Total Emissions |
CO2e | 7,878,629 | 5,116,499 | 12,995,128 |
NOx | 245 | 245 | 490 |
VOCs | 68 | 132 | 200 |
CO | 245 | 245 | 490 |
PM | 189 | 245 | 434 |
SOx | 107 | 95 | 202 |
HAPs | 24 | 17 | 41 |
New Mexicans are not stupid. We can tell when a bad actor is trying to get away with murder. That is exactly what is happening here.
2. The Applications Rely on Unenforceable Emission Limits and Exclude Startup, Shutdown and Maintenance Emissions, a significant source of pollution that alone renders the stated limits in these permit applications invalid.
Even if NMED were to accept the fiction that the East and West Microgrids are separate sources, the stated annual limits are unenforceable and therefore the Project’s full potential emissions based on the proposed turbines must be used, making each Microgrid, and the Project as a whole, a major source.
Acoma proposes “synthetic minor” annual emission limits that are not based on any specified physical or operational restrictions, such as limits on operating hours, fuel use, or turbine capacity, a violation of EPA[4] and NMED[5] rules. Full operation of the proposed turbines would result in emissions well above major source thresholds. Self-declared annual caps alone are not enforceable and cannot be legally used to avoid major source permitting. Nobody trusts Acoma LLC to monitor and self-regulate their pollution, and NMED cannot be naive enough to accept their word as evidence.
The Applications also fail to include startup, shutdown, and routine maintenance (SSM) emissions in annual totals, even though applicants themselves admit these events can release extremely high hourly emissions of NOx, CO, VOCs, and PM. The Applicant provides no limits on how often SSM events may occur, making the omission especially concerning. This omission results in further understating the Project’s pollution and renders the permits invalid.
3. The Project Will Result in Destructive Climate Impacts, Worsen Ozone Pollution and Violate Health Standards
Taken together the East and West Microgrids exceed the climate warming CO2e emissions of Albuquerque, Santa Fe and Las Cruces combined, making a mockery of the Energy Transition Act and endangering the future of all New Mexicans.
Acoma LLC admits that the East and West Microgrids will emit nearly 13 million tons of CO2e per year, posing an existential threat to human health. A study just published in Air Quality, Atmosphere and Health in February 2026 titled "Carbon dioxide overload, detected in human blood, suggests a potentially toxic atmosphere within 50 years"[6] reports that an analysis of average blood HCO3 levels in a large human population suggests a causal link between ambient CO2 and systemic bicarbonate levels. A CO2 emissions trend analysis suggests that HCO3 levels will be at the currently accepted limit of the healthy range for humans within 50 years. The authors write:
"Given that the entire evolution period for humans has seen a stable and relatively low atmospheric CO2 level (<300 ppm) it’s possible that our physiology is finely tuned for a range of CO2 that will not be much greater than this level. As the atmospheric CO2 levels rise, already at 420 ppm, the increasing levels of bicarbonate, and decreasing levels of calcium and phosphorus in our blood represent permanent and growing changes in human blood chemistry. These changes can be explained by CO2 retention and overload in the body." (p.6)
They detail the results of numerous studies on CO2 retention health impacts, including the formation of reactive oxygen species that play a role in malignant diseases, diabetes, atherosclerosis, chronic inflammation and neurological disorders such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s, as well as oxidative damage to cellular DNA that can lead to mutations resulting in the initiation and progression of cancer. And they report that studies have found the physiological effect of exposure to slightly elevated atmospheric CO2 can detrimentally impact learning, cognitive abilities and mental health in humans, including increased anxiety and panic attacks.
Further, Southern Doña Ana County and the El Paso–Las Cruces region already suffer from dangerous ozone levels, with about 15 high ozone days per year, resulting in significant health impacts. Researchers have determined that elevated ozone levels in El Paso-Las Cruces area cause about 22 premature deaths, 110 emergency room visits, and over 224,000 missed work or school days per year.[7] When analyzed correctly as a single project, emissions from the Project would cause significant ozone impacts, requiring detailed modeling and compliance with nonattainment permitting rules, including the lowest achievable emission rates and pollution offsets. Instead, the applications include no ozone modeling analysis at all.
When the Nitrogen Oxide concentrations of both Microgrids are considered together, the 1-hour concentration, including other nearby sources, is 240.69 ug/m3, well above the EPA's standard for short term NOx exposure of 188.03 ug/m3 over 1 hour. When added to the background concentrations in the region, the result is 320.89 ug/m3, almost twice the maximum safe amount. Elevated NOx exposure can cause or exacerbate respiratory illnesses and lead to chronic lung inflammation and cardiovascular disease, including an increased risk of heart attacks and strokes.
The proposed Acoma Microgrids threaten New Mexico lives and compromise our future.
4. A Safe and Cost Effective Alternative Exists - Solar and Battery Storage
It is imprudent to accept Acoma LLC’s chosen resource generation without the consideration of alternatives; the failure to reasonably consider alternatives and present them is a fundamental flaw in Acoma LLC’s decision-making process.[8] In the analysis of feasible generation resources, Acoma LLC can and should be expected to factor in cost, time of deployment, externalized costs: water consumption, air, water and noise pollution and health impacts. Environmental justice principles require NMED to analyze the total combined burden of multiple pollutants and social stressors (e.g., poverty, housing, water quality and quantity) that will disproportionately affect the BIPOC and low-income communities living near Project Jupiter over time. NMED must evaluate these air permits beyond single-source pollution, requiring holistic assessments of health risks and socioeconomic vulnerabilities, and to prioritize the health and safety of New Mexicans.
According to the June 2025 Lazard Levelized Cost of Energy Report “renewables stand out as both the lowest-cost and quickest-to-deploy generation resource.” (p. 4)[9] Construction time for utility-scale solar averages 15 months (p 34), compared to 24 months for gas peaking plants like those proposed by Acoma, and the “levelized” cost of solar-plus battery is $90.50/MWh ( p13; midpoint of range of total life cycle cost, unsubsidized) while gas turbines average $108.50/MWh (p13; midpoint of range of total life cycle cost). This renewable energy solution for data centers is not theoretical. Google is already deploying a 300MW/30GWh iron air battery system paired with 1.6 GW renewable energy generation to power a data center in Minnesota.[10]
In conclusion, these deceptive applications are irreparably deficient. They underestimate pollution, evade major source review, ignore startup and shutdown emissions, and fail to protect public health in an already overburdened region.
NMED should simply reject permit applications 10732 and 10734 outright, and require the Applicant to submit a single, accurate application that fully evaluates the Project’s true emissions, accounts for public health, and complies with state and federal law. At the very least a public hearing on the merits of these permits must be held.
Alternative, safe energy sources exist that can be implemented at faster speeds and operated at lower cost. There is no excuse for greenlighting these dangerous fossil fueled Microgrids.
[2] https://www.env.nm.gov/wpcontent/uploads/sites/2/2017/08/Single_Source_Determination_Guidance_05July10.doc
[3] See, Pub. Serv. Co. of New Mexico v. New Mexico Pub. Regulation Comm’n, 2019-NMSC-012, ¶ 11, (an agency or Commission is not free to disregard its own rules and prior ratemaking decisions or to change its position without good cause and prior notice to the affected parties. (citing, PNM Gas Servs., 2000-NMSC-012, ¶ 9, 129 N.M. 1, 1 P.3d 383 (quoting Hobbs, 1993-NMSC-032, ¶ 12, 115 N.M. 678, 858 P.2d 54). Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 579 U.S. 211, 221–22 (2016) (an unexplained inconsistency in agency policy” is arbitrary and capricious).
[4] EPA New Source Review Manual at A.5. “[A] permit that limits actual source emissions on an annual basis only (e.g., the facility is limited solely to 249 [tons per year]) cannot be considered in determining potential to emit. It contains none of the basic requirements and is therefore not capable of ensuring continual compliance, i.e., it is not enforceable as a practical matter.”
[5] NMAC 20.2.72.7(Y).
[6] Larcombe, A, and Bierwirth, P. Carbon dioxide overload, detected in human blood, suggests a potentially toxic atmosphere within 50 years. Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health. 26 February, 2026 (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11869-026-01918-5)
[7] https://healthoftheair.org (in 2023, El Paso County experienced 16 premature deaths, 87 emergency room visits, and 173,158 impacted days, while Doña Ana County experienced 6 premature deaths, 23 emergency room visits, and 50,960 impacted days).
[8] Pub. Serv. Co. of New Mexico v. New Mexico Pub. Regulation Comm’n, 2019-NMSC-012, ¶¶ 31-32. ([A] reasonable person under the circumstances faced by PNM’s management would have adequately considered alternatives to retaining the Palo Verde assets. …We observe that there is a meaningful relationship from the perspective of the ratepayers between the consideration of alternatives and the cost of the chosen generation resource. The goal of the consideration of alternatives is, of course, to reasonably protect ratepayers from wasteful expenditure. The failure to reasonably consider alternatives was a fundamental flaw in PNM’s decision-making process.) (Internal citation omitted.)
[9] Lazard Levelized Cost of Energy, June 2025. https://www.lazard.com/media/5tlbhyla/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2025-_vf.pdf
Comments