New Mexico AG finds ‘substantial share’ of Project Jupiter public comments raise concerns

New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez in a Wednesday letter to New Mexico Environment Department Secretary James Kenney said that a “substantial share” of public comments on the pending air quality permit application for the Project Jupiter data center were “not sent by members of the public acting on their own.”

Source NM in June revealed how residents in New Mexico’s three largest cities said their names falsely appeared on pro-Project Jupiter comments after they were approached by canvassers representing the Oracle and OpenAI data center. Several elected officials — in the state Legislature and on city councils across the state — subsequently said their names were similarly misused, prompting Torrez to open an investigation.

Torrez’s Wednesday letter to Kenney said the New Mexico Department of Justice’s review is “ongoing.”

“As it proceeds, we will evaluate whether the conduct described in this letter may also violate New Mexico criminal laws, and we will expand the inquiry accordingly,” Torrez wrote.

In his letter, Torrez said his office analyzed all 17,419 comments submitted during the public comment period for the data center’s air quality permit application.

If approved, the air quality permit would enable developers to use a natural-gas powered fuel cell system to power Project Jupiter. Projections show it could emit as many greenhouse gases annually as New Mexico’s largest cities combined.

Torrez said that about 60% of the public comments — between 10,000 and 10,600 — contained the same pro-Project Jupiter form letter and came from 9,000 internet addresses, most of which submitted one comment apiece. Most listed out-of-state phone numbers even though the public comment portal didn’t require a portal, Torrez said.

He added that many of the form letters matched the supporter list associated with Project Jupiter’s website, projectjupitertogether.com, which hosts an interactive form letter titled “Send a comment to NMED.”

About 4,700 comments, most of which opposed the permit application, came from just 17 internet addresses, Torrez said.

Torrez wrote that he wanted “to be precise about the limits of what we know.”

“This letter does not establish who is responsible for any particular comment, and it does not characterize anyone’s intent,” he continued. “It does establish that a number of comments cannot be read as a measure of public opinion until the record has been verified.”

The NMDOJ review also turned up 22 comments bearing the names of public officials, local governments and organizations that all came from one computer, Torrez wrote, adding that “several of the officials named in those filings have informed my office that they did not write or authorize the submissions made in their names.”

“Taken together, these patterns mean that a substantial share of the comments was not sent by members of the public acting on their own,” he wrote.

Torrez asked NMED to preserve records including IP addresses and submission timestamps, to set aside the comments he’s flagged and to mark them as unverified. He also asked NMED officials to seek a ruling from the hearing officer presiding over the air quality permit application as to whether the flagged comments should be “considered in determining significant public interest.”

If the records can’t be verified, Torrez advised NMED to consider reopening its public comment period.

Torrez added that his office is asking Project Jupiter’s developers, its consultants and vendors to preserve corresponding records.

In a statement to Source NM, NMED spokesperson Drew Goretzka said that Kenney and Torrez met Wednesday morning to discuss the ongoing investigation.

“Secretary Kenney appreciates Attorney General Torrez’s investigation of this matter, and the New Mexico Environment Department will continue to preserve records in support of the New Mexico Department of Justice’s investigation,” Goretzka said. “While NMED has strengthened security measures in its public comment system, any person or organization that attempts to misuse the public comment process to steer a permit decision should be held accountable. NMED looks forward to continuing to work with the NMDOJ as the investigation proceeds, including helping in any resulting civil or criminal proceedings, as appropriate.”