Resident Resource · Updated August 8, 2026

A 300-megawatt data center is coming 506 feet from Keller backyards.

On August 4, 2026, Westlake's Planning & Zoning Commission approved the site plan for the Circle T Data Center Campus — four buildings, more than a million square feet, on roughly 90 acres along U.S. 377, backing directly onto Keller's Marshall Ridge neighborhood. Keller residents get the noise, the traffic, and the view. Westlake gets the tax revenue. This page lays out what is actually known, what is genuinely contested, and where residents still have leverage.

300 MWPower the campus plans to draw
506 ftFrom the building line to the nearest Keller home
54M galWater per year, per the developer
~75People on site at any given time
Next decision: Tuesday, August 18, 2026 Westlake Town Council votes on the site plan and development agreement. No construction can begin until that agreement passes.
Section 1

What is actually being built

Every figure below comes from the developer's own presentation, town documents, or the Town of Westlake's public statements. Sources are linked in Section 3.

The basics
Project nameCircle T Data Center Campus (called "Circle T Data Center" in Westlake town documents)
LocationAlong U.S. Highway 377 in Westlake, on Circle T Ranch land — part of Hillwood's 27,000-acre AllianceTexas development
DeveloperAmerican Real Estate Partners (AREP) and PowerHouse Data Centers. Jeff Parsons, SVP of development and construction, presented to the commission.
End tenantNot publicly disclosed. No operator has been named in any public filing or news coverage to date.
SizeRoughly 87–90 acres (figures vary by document); four data center buildings totaling more than 1 million square feet
Also on siteA private electrical substation / Oncor switchyard, backup generators, a security building at the main entrance, and a pump & water treatment building serving two storage tanks holding 5.5 million gallons
PowerOncor switchyard sized for 350 MW. The data center is to use 300 MW; the remaining 50 MW is described as available for use within Westlake.
Water54 million gallons per year. Average daily demand 165,000 gallons; peak daily demand 1.5 million gallons. Westlake says the cooling system runs waterless roughly 85% of the year.
EmploymentAbout 75 employees on site at any given time, per Westlake's project FAQ
Distance to Keller homes506 feet from the building footprint to the property line next to homes on Llano Court. Westlake's minimum requirement is 150 feet. The nearest Westlake residence is about 1,200 yards — two-thirds of a mile.
Buffers220-foot landscape buffer on the south (Keller) side; 75-foot buffer along U.S. 377; a landscaped berm along the highway
Claimed benefit to WestlakeWestlake officials have said the project could increase the town's tax revenue by roughly 14%

How it got approved — and what that means

This is the single most important thing to understand: the zoning fight already happened, years ago. The land was zoned for commercial-industrial use with a data center among the permitted uses before Westlake updated its development code to address data centers specifically. The August 4 hearing was narrower than most people in the room realized — the commission was only deciding whether the submitted site plan complied with the development standards in Town Ordinance 307.

"After reviewing the application, Town staff concluded that the site plan satisfied every applicable approval requirement and, in several areas, including architecture, setbacks, buffering, and landscaping, exceeded the Town's minimum standards. Given the site plan's compliance with the applicable approval criteria, there was no available basis on which the Commission could deny the site plan." — Town of Westlake statement, quoted by CBS Texas, August 6, 2026

Whether or not you accept that characterization, it defines the battlefield. Arguments that the project is a bad idea in principle have very little purchase in a site-plan review. Arguments about enforceable conditions, state permits, and public money have a great deal.

Conditions the commission attached on August 4

Note what is missing. None of these conditions include a numeric noise limit measured at the Keller property line, a monitoring requirement, a reporting requirement, or a remedy if the mitigation does not work. "Complies with the noise ordinance" is a promise about a measurement method, not a promise about what residents will hear. Getting measurable, enforceable, monitored limits into the development agreement is the most winnable fight left. See Section 4.

Timeline

Section 2

Living next to it — and what your community actually gets

This section is deliberately honest. Some concerns about data centers are strongly supported by evidence; others are not, and repeating weak claims at a public hearing hands the other side an easy win. Each item below is labeled so you know which arguments will hold up under cross-examination.

Noise — the strongest argument you have

Well supported

Data center noise comes from cooling equipment that runs continuously, 8,760 hours a year. On hyperscale facilities, cooling tower fans produce roughly 70 to 85 decibels at 50 feet depending on fan size and speed. Air-cooled chillers, cooling towers, air handling units and server fans can reach up to 100 dBA at the source. Diesel backup generators — which must be periodically test-run — can hit around 110 dBA.

The critical point is that "complies with the noise ordinance" and "you won't hear it" are different claims. When noise was measured at Northern Virginia data centers that were the subject of resident complaints, levels on residential property came in between 40 and 59 decibels — quiet enough to pass local ordinances, but within the range the EPA associates with reduced ability to sleep, work and concentrate. Residents there reported sleep disruption, headaches, and an inability to escape the sound inside their own homes.

The reason is physics. Data center noise is heavily weighted toward low frequencies, which travel farther than higher-pitched sound and pass through walls, windows and insulation far more easily. Standard A-weighted (dBA) measurement, which most municipal noise ordinances rely on, deliberately discounts low frequencies. A facility can be fully compliant on paper and still produce a constant hum that residents cannot tune out. Ask Westlake directly which metric its ordinance uses, at what location it is measured, and who does the measuring — and get the answer in writing.

The most useful fact in this whole document comes from Westlake's own commission chairman. Before the August 4 vote, P&Z chairman Terry Wilkinson drove 2.3 miles to the Meta data center campus in Fort Worth's Alliance area and walked its perimeter. His words: "there was an obvious noise generated from that campus." He added that berms greatly mitigated the sound where they existed — which is why he asked for more of them. That is the chair of the approving body confirming, on the record, that a comparable facility is audible from outside its fence line.

What to ask for instead of trusting the ordinance

  • A numeric limit measured at the Keller property line, not at the source or the Westlake line
  • A dBC or low-frequency standard alongside dBA, plus a tonality penalty — this is what actually captures the hum
  • A separate, stricter nighttime limit (10 p.m.–7 a.m.)
  • Continuous third-party monitoring at the boundary, paid for by the developer, with data published publicly
  • A pre-construction baseline acoustic study commissioned by Keller — without a baseline, you can never prove what changed
  • Defined remedies: what happens, on what schedule, at whose cost, if the limit is exceeded
  • Restricted hours for generator testing and construction

Electricity — the scale problem

Well supported

Three hundred megawatts is not an abstraction. Running continuously for a year, a 300 MW load consumes roughly 2.1 to 2.6 billion kilowatt-hours, depending on utilization. The average Texas home used about 13,152 kWh in 2024, per EIA data. That puts this single campus in the range of 160,000 to 200,000 Texas households. Keller has about 47,500 residents at an average household size of 2.89 — roughly 16,400 households, or about 216 million kWh a year. This single campus will draw on the order of ten times the entire residential electricity consumption of the City of Keller, on ninety acres, for about 75 jobs.

Westlake's FAQ says residents' electricity bills will not increase because the developer paid Oncor to bring infrastructure to the west side of town at no cost to residents. That is a real and meaningful commitment as far as it goes. But it addresses only the local drop — not the regional transmission buildout that serving loads of this size requires.

What is genuinely contested

Under ERCOT's structure, equipment connecting a specific customer is typically charged to that customer, but larger transmission upgrades that strengthen the regional grid go into a systemwide pool recovered from all electricity customers. In CenterPoint's territory, residential consumers used 33% of the electricity but paid 49% of transmission costs. Texas Senate Bill 6 (2025) directed the PUCT to examine whether the four-coincident-peak methodology fairly distributes those costs.

The counter-evidence: a May 2026 independent report by the consulting firm E3 found no historical evidence that data centers have driven increases in residential electricity costs under existing rate structures. Be aware that opponents of your position will cite it. The honest framing is forward-looking: PUCT's own transmission cost review concluded that rapidly growing computational loads are driving infrastructure investment that could raise residential and small-business bills under current policy — which is precisely why Abbott directed the PUC to require data centers to fully fund the infrastructure needed to serve them, and why cost-allocation rules are being rewritten right now.

Senate Bill 6 (2025) — why it matters here

  • Creates a large-load category at a default threshold of 75 MW at a single site. At 300 MW, this project is four times over that line and squarely regulated.
  • Requires a transmission screening study fee of at least $100,000.
  • Requires that large loads interconnected after December 31, 2025 install equipment allowing ERCOT to directly curtail them during firm load shed events. Ask whether this campus is committing to that, in writing, in the development agreement.

Water — read the peak number, not the average

Partly true on both sides

Westlake says the campus will use less water than an average golf course and less than 1,000 homes. Run the arithmetic and that is roughly defensible: 54 million gallons a year works out to somewhere under 500 typical North Texas households on an annual basis. If you argue at the podium that this project will drain the water supply, you will be corrected, publicly, with the town's own numbers.

The stronger version of the argument is about timing, not volume.

  • Average daily demand is 165,000 gallons — but peak daily demand is 1.5 million gallons, roughly nine times the average.
  • The system is described as running waterless about 85% of the year, meaning water use is concentrated in the hottest stretch — exactly when regional supply is most stressed.
  • Both Westlake and Keller buy treated water wholesale from the City of Fort Worth, supplied by the Tarrant Regional Water District. This is the same bucket.
  • Keller residents already live under year-round twice-weekly watering restrictions, tightening to once weekly or a total irrigation ban as TRWD drought stages escalate.

The ask: a binding commitment that the data center's water use is curtailed on the same schedule, and by a comparable proportion, as residential customers when drought stages are triggered. If Keller families can be told they may not water their lawns, a 300 MW campus can be told to lean on dry cooling. Ask for this in writing in the development agreement.

Property values — be careful here

Weakly supported — do not lead with this

This is the argument residents reach for first and it is the weakest one in the file. The formal research does not currently support it:

  • A 2025 George Mason University analysis of Northern Virginia — the densest data center market in the world — found that homes closer to data centers sold for more, and concluded the analysis "fails to demonstrate statistical evidence that proximity to a data center negatively impacts housing values."
  • University of Rochester research found little measurable effect on nearby home prices.
  • A separate George Mason-led study did find that new data centers slowed local home-price growth — the closest thing to support for the concern.

If you lead with property values at a public hearing, expect the developer's consultant to read the GMU conclusion back to you and move on. The defensible version: the research base is thin, drawn almost entirely from a region where data centers arrived alongside enormous job growth, and it measures sale prices rather than time on market, buyer pool, or disclosure obligations. A seller on Llano Court in 2029 will have to answer questions about the hum. That is a real cost to a real family even if it never shows up in a regression.

The actual return on investment for your community

Well supported

Here is the part that gets lost in the noise-and-water argument, and it is the cleanest case Keller residents have.

The costs land in Keller. The revenue lands in Westlake.

The nearest Keller home is 506 feet from the building line. The nearest Westlake home is two-thirds of a mile. Westlake officials project the project could raise Westlake's tax revenue by roughly 14%. Not one dollar of that flows to Keller's budget, Keller's roads, or Keller's residents. Keller has no vote, no zoning authority over the site, and no share of the proceeds. This is the entire argument in two sentences, and it does not depend on any contested study.

What data centers deliver, generally

Even for the host jurisdiction, the economics are far worse than the headline investment numbers suggest. Data centers are the most capital-intensive and least labor-intensive major development a town can host. Good Jobs First has documented the pattern across states:

DealPublic subsidyPermanent jobsCost per job
Apple — North Carolina$321 million50$6.4 million
Google — Columbus, Ohio$54.3 million property tax abatement20$2.7 million
Illinois statewide (since mid-2019)$468 million in sales tax exemptions and credits339~$1.4 million

Good Jobs First further reports that in 10 of the 20 states that disclose annual costs, data center subsidy programs exceed $100 million a year, and that Georgia localities alone are projected to lose an estimated $1.1 billion in 2026 and $1.4 billion in 2027. In Oregon, data centers owned by Amazon, Apple, Alphabet and Meta collected $616 million in property tax abatements between 2016 and 2025, with annual program costs rising 762%.

What this means for you, concretely. No tax abatement has been publicly reported for the Circle T project. That is not the same as none existing. Watch for three separate approvals, each with its own hearing and its own vote:

  • A Chapter 380 local development agreement from the Town of Westlake
  • A Chapter 312 property tax abatement from Tarrant County Commissioners Court
  • A JETI (Jobs, Energy, Technology and Innovation Act) agreement from the school district serving the site

If any public money is on the table, the ROI conversation changes completely — and unlike the Westlake site plan, Tarrant County and the school district are bodies Keller residents actually vote for. That is real leverage. Abbott's August 3 audit directive also requires PUCT and ERCOT to verify each project's public financial assistance, which means this information is going to have to surface.

Traffic, air quality, and construction

Modest but real

Westlake says operational traffic impact will be minimal, with about 75 employees on site at a time. That is probably accurate for the operating phase. The real traffic burden is the multi-year construction period — heavy equipment, concrete, transformers and generator deliveries on U.S. 377 — which is rarely addressed in site plan review and should be addressed in the development agreement (hours, routes, staging, dust control, road repair bonding).

On air quality: the campus includes backup generators. Statewide, at least 38 Texas data centers have received minor-source air permits since 2024, covering more than 2,100 diesel backup generators. Generators emit nitrogen oxides and particulate matter during testing and outages. The permitting path matters enormously for your rights — see Step 3.

Section 4

How to fight this — a realistic plan

Start with an honest premise: stopping this project outright at the Westlake Town Council is unlikely. The land was already zoned for it, staff found the site plan compliant, and the town has said publicly there was no legal basis to deny it. A strategy built on "vote no on August 18" is a strategy built to fail.

But "we can't stop it" is not the same as "we have no leverage." There are four separate places where Keller residents can still change outcomes, and three of them are outside Westlake's control entirely. Work all four at once.

1

Show up on August 18 — but change what you're asking for

10 days
Westlake Town Council · site plan and development agreement · no construction until the agreement passes

The development agreement is a contract. Unlike the site plan, its terms are negotiable, and the council has broad latitude over what goes in it. Every hour spent asking the council to reject the project is an hour not spent getting binding protections written into a document that will govern this facility for thirty years.

Bring a written list of specific, enforceable asks

  • Noise: a numeric limit at the Keller property line, including a dBC / low-frequency and tonality standard, a stricter nighttime limit, continuous third-party monitoring paid for by the developer with public data, and defined remedies with deadlines and penalties if exceeded.
  • Baseline: a pre-construction acoustic baseline study, at the developer's expense, before a single permit issues. Without this you can never prove causation later.
  • Water: mandatory curtailment on the same schedule and in the same proportion as residential customers whenever TRWD or Fort Worth drought stages are triggered.
  • Generators: restricted testing hours, an annual runtime cap, notice to Keller residents before testing, and disclosure of the number, size, and emissions of every generator.
  • Grid: a written commitment to full ERCOT curtailment capability under SB 6, and to fully funding all transmission infrastructure required to serve the load.
  • Construction: hour limits, haul routes off residential streets, dust control, and road repair bonding.
  • Transparency: disclosure of the end tenant, the actual connected load, and every public incentive sought at any level of government.
  • Expansion: a hard cap on total buildings, square footage, and megawatts — so this cannot quietly become a 600 MW campus in phase two.

Scheduling conflict — plan for it now. The City of Keller's own Pre-Council and Regular Council meeting is also scheduled for Tuesday, August 18 at 5:00 p.m. Residents cannot be in both rooms. Split deliberately: send your strongest technical speakers to Westlake, and send a second group to Keller's council to demand the baseline acoustic study and a formal resolution (Step 6). Do not let the two meetings cannibalize each other by accident.

Practical mechanics

  • Check the agenda — posted three business days ahead. Confirm the public comment sign-up procedure with the Town Secretary (817-490-5711) before the meeting.
  • Arrive early. The August 4 crowd spilled out of the chamber before the 5 p.m. start.
  • Coordinate. Ten people each making a different specific ask is far more effective than fifty people making the same general objection. Assign topics in advance.
  • Be precise and be calm. Laughter and heckling at the August 4 meeting were reported in coverage — it gave the town an easy narrative. Don't hand it to them again.
  • Submit your asks in writing to every council member before the meeting, so they exist in the record whether or not you get to speak.
2

Get into the state audit — this is your best real leverage

Immediately
PUCT / ERCOT · Governor's August 3 directive · PUCT open meeting August 20

On August 3, five days before this project's site plan was approved, the Governor ordered a comprehensive verification and audit of every data center moving through ERCOT's interconnection process — effectively pausing approvals. Projects that fail the transparency requirements or state law will be denied connection to the grid.

A 300 MW campus cannot operate without an interconnection. This is the one venue where the answer can be no.

The audit is required to verify each project's:

  • Power demand
  • Water use
  • Public financial assistance
  • Community protections
  • Ownership

Two of those five — public financial assistance and community protections — are exactly what Keller residents have been asking about and not getting answers on. Put your questions into that record.

What to do

  • File written comments with the PUCT. Identify the Circle T Data Center Campus by name and location, state the 300 MW figure and the 350 MW Oncor switchyard, and ask specifically what "community protections" have been verified for residents in an adjacent city with no vote.
  • Ask the PUCT to confirm whether the project is classified as a large load under SB 6, and whether it has committed to direct ERCOT curtailment capability as required for loads interconnected after December 31, 2025.
  • Watch the August 20 PUCT open meeting, where ERCOT will seek a good-cause exception on Batch Zero large load classification.
  • Contact the Governor's office directly. His directive is the reason this lever exists; a specific, well-documented example of the problem he described is genuinely useful to that office.
  • Copy State Sen. Tan Parker (SD 12) and your State House representative. Note that HD 98's seat is open — Rep. Giovanni Capriglione is not seeking reelection, which means every candidate in that race has a strong incentive to be responsive to organized Keller voters right now.
3

Get ahead of the TCEQ air permit for the generators

Start now
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality · backup generator permitting

This is the most commonly missed opportunity, and timing is everything. Whether you get any public rights depends entirely on which permitting path the developer chooses:

  • Minor New Source Review permits are subject to public participation rules — public notice, public comment, and contested case hearings for affected parties. A contested case hearing is a real, adversarial proceeding. It is the strongest procedural tool available to you anywhere in this fight.
  • Individual registrations under a standard permit draw neither notice nor contested case rights. Large diesel arrays have qualified this way with no individual public notice at all.

At least 38 Texas data centers have received minor-source permits since 2024, covering more than 2,100 diesel backup generators statewide. Do not wait to find out which path this project takes.

What to do

  • Write to TCEQ now asking which permit application or registration has been filed for the Circle T Data Center Campus in Westlake, Tarrant County, and by whom.
  • Ask the same question of Westlake and of the developer, in writing, at the August 18 meeting.
  • Submit a comment and request a public meeting the moment any notice appears. Submitting a comment, requesting a public meeting, or requesting a contested case hearing automatically places you on the notice list for everything that follows.
  • Ask Keller's city attorney whether the City of Keller itself will file as an affected party. A city carries far more weight in a contested case than individual residents.
4

Follow the money — and vote on the people who control it

Ongoing
Tarrant County Commissioners Court · school district · Westlake Chapter 380

Keller residents have no vote on Westlake's council. You do have a vote on Tarrant County Commissioners Court and on your school board. Any tax incentive requires a separate approval, with its own public hearing, from bodies that answer to you.

  • Chapter 312 property tax abatement — Tarrant County Commissioners Court
  • JETI (Jobs, Energy, Technology and Innovation Act) — the school district serving the site. Confirm which district that is and put the question to your board directly.
  • Chapter 380 local development agreement — Town of Westlake
  • State sales and use tax exemption for qualifying data centers

Set up agenda alerts for all of these bodies. Public Citizen's Texas guide (linked in Section 3) walks through each mechanism and how to intervene. If public money is involved, the entire ROI conversation reopens on terms far more favorable to you — and Abbott's audit now requires that public financial assistance be disclosed and verified regardless.

5

File public information requests — the record is the leverage

This week
Texas Public Information Act · Westlake, Keller, Tarrant County

There is a documented factual dispute between two cities about who knew what and when, a former commissioner testifying she was removed from the P&Z the night before a key session, and a project PowerPoint that the town reportedly "could not find." Records requests are cheap, fast, and they generate exactly the kind of material that keeps reporters engaged.

Request from the Town of Westlake

  • All records of the December 2024 meeting with Keller officials and Hillwood Properties, including the presentation reportedly shared with Keller staff, attendee lists, calendar invitations, and follow-up correspondence
  • All communications between town officials/staff and Hillwood, American Real Estate Partners, PowerHouse Data Centers, and Oncor regarding this project
  • The acoustic study or noise modeling report underlying the claim of noise-ordinance compliance — this is the document that matters most
  • The water demand analysis supporting the 54 million gallon and 1.5 million gallon peak figures
  • Any draft development agreement, Chapter 380 agreement, or incentive term sheet
  • Records concerning the removal of a Planning & Zoning commissioner in January 2025
  • The traffic impact analysis, and the analysis supporting the ~14% tax revenue projection

Request from the City of Keller

  • All records of the December 2024 meeting, including anything received from Westlake or Hillwood
  • All internal communications regarding the project from December 2024 forward

Keller's political interest is aligned with residents here, so its records are likely to come back faster and more completely. Under the Texas Public Information Act, a governmental body generally must produce records promptly or seek an Attorney General ruling within ten business days.

6

Make Keller act as an institution, not a cheerleader

Aug 18
City of Keller · Mayor Ross McMullin and City Council · Pre-Council and Regular Council meeting, Tuesday Aug 18, 5:00 p.m.

Keller's leadership has expressed support for residents. Statements of support cost nothing. Convert that into things that carry legal and evidentiary weight — and note that Keller's council meets the same evening as the Westlake vote, which makes it the natural place to press these asks:

  • Commission an independent pre-construction acoustic baseline study at the Marshall Ridge property line. This is the highest-value thing Keller can do, it is comparatively inexpensive, and the window closes the day construction starts. Without a baseline, every future noise complaint becomes unprovable.
  • Pass a formal council resolution stating Keller's specific conditions — it becomes part of the public record before the August 18 vote and before the state audit.
  • Have the city attorney file as an affected party in any TCEQ proceeding and submit comments to PUCT on the city's letterhead.
  • Request a formal interlocal agreement with Westlake governing notification, monitoring, and complaint response for developments adjacent to the shared boundary — so this cannot happen the same way twice.
  • Ask Keller to review its own notification ordinance for projects near city boundaries and to press Westlake for reciprocal notice.
7

Organize properly, and don't do it alone

Ongoing
Neighborhood organization, coalition, professional help
  • Build a real list. Email and text, not just a Facebook group. Facebook will not reach people the night before a hearing. Assign a single point of contact for press.
  • Pool money for professionals. Two hires matter more than anything else: a land use / municipal attorney who has handled a Texas development agreement, and an independent acoustical consultant who can review the developer's noise model and testify. Across a few hundred Marshall Ridge households this is affordable, and it is the difference between opinion and evidence.
  • Join the coalition. Public Citizen is a founding member of the Texas Data Center Rebellion, which connects community groups across the state facing identical fights. They have already made the mistakes you are about to make. Contact them through Public Citizen's Texas office.
  • Start a documentation log today. Date, time, weather, location, what you heard or saw. Photos and video with timestamps. Phone sound-meter readings are not court-admissible but they establish a pattern and they show diligence.
  • Keep the press engaged. WFAA, NBC 5, CBS Texas, FOX 4, Community Impact and The Texan have all covered this. Reporters need new facts to justify a follow-up — records request results, the acoustic study, the audit filing, a school board hearing. Feed them specifics, not outrage.
  • Register the political consequence. Two of the officials most relevant to this fight are on ballots or answer to voters who are. Keller's former mayor, who attended the December 2024 meeting, is a candidate for the open HD 98 seat. Candidates respond to organized constituencies. Ask every one of them, publicly and in writing, where they stand on data center siting near residential neighborhoods and on the state audit.

If you only do three things this week:

  1. File public information requests with Westlake and Keller — especially for the acoustic study.
  2. Submit written comments to the PUCT referencing the Governor's August 3 audit directive and the project's 300 MW load.
  3. Get your written list of development agreement conditions to every Westlake council member before August 18, and organize speakers so each one covers a different specific ask.
About this page. This is a community-produced resource, not a legal document, and nothing here is legal advice. Every factual claim is drawn from the linked sources and reflects the public record as of August 8, 2026. Figures reported by different outlets vary slightly (acreage is variously reported as 87, 88 and 90 acres) and are presented as reported. Where the evidence is genuinely contested — most notably on property values and on electricity rate impacts — that is labeled plainly, because the fastest way to lose a hearing is to be caught overstating a claim. Verify anything you intend to say publicly against the primary source before you say it. Consult a licensed Texas attorney before taking legal action.
Stay in this

The August 18 vote is not the end of it

The TCEQ air permit for the backup generators, the state interconnection audit, and any tax incentive from the county or the school district all come later — and each one is a separate hearing with its own deadline. Leave an email and we'll tell you when the next one lands. That's all it's used for.

No newsletter, no fundraising, no list sharing. Notification of hearings and deadlines only.