Abatement
Register

I read the Texas incentive contracts so you don't have to.

The state publishes 4,428 Chapter 380 and 381 economic development agreements as scanned PDFs and structures none of them. I read the executed documents and record what each one actually commits a company to — the build-by date, the repayment remedy, and the page it sits on.

4,428agreements Texas has filed
1,644read in full so far
185fall due within 18 months
332expired, verified, outcome unrecorded
Worked example · Richardson

Three numbers, one company, one contract.

State's filed amount$3M
Binding covenant, §4.1$225M
Recital — binds nobody$300M

Celestica's agreement contains all three. Coverage used the largest. It sits in a whereas clause, which commits no one to anything. The enforceable figure is in section 4.1, and it is $75 million smaller.

Why the published totals mislead

One project, filed twice.

Taylor. A 366,000 sq ft plant with 900 committed jobs appears as two $50M agreements — one for the property owner, one for the lessee. Added up, one building reads as $100M.

Waco. Graphic Packaging and Brazos River Ventures each filed with the city and again with McLennan County. Holt Texas appears under two agreement numbers in Waxahachie, same date, same amount.

No single filing is wrong. They are wrong when you add them — which is what every summary of this data does.

Largest in the register · Arlington

Thirty years, to a name that tells you nothing.

Typical abatement term10 yrs
Abated here, in full30 yrs
Agreement runs until 207855 yrs

Go For Three, LLC holds the largest commitment in the register: 100% of ad valorem taxes abated for thirty years, plus $38 million in payments over ten years and $19.5 million over fifteen — inside a $97.5 million package for a hotel, convention centre and parking facility.

The entity is Loews Hotels. You cannot learn that from the registry listing, which shows only the LLC. Every figure above is quoted from the executed agreement and the state’s own filing — lawfully approved, in open session, and effectively unreadable at scale.

That is the problem in one row. Not that it was hidden. That nobody can see it.

Verification

Checked against the grid, not against itself.

For a Hopkins County brief covering five agreements, I took each generation project to ERCOT's interconnection records. Four were already operating — the deadline had passed and the registry still showed nothing. The fifth appeared nowhere.

That pattern now has 332 verified examples. Texas records what was promised and never records what happened.

On the board now · every line quoted and page-cited

Chambers County alone has four process trains under deadline.

Energy Transfer — Chambers Co., Fractionation Facility 9 31 Dec 2026
Targa Train 11 — Chambers Co. 30 Dec 2026
Targa Train 12 — Chambers Co. 31 Dec 2026
Enterprise Products — Chambers Co., Frac XV 31 Jan 2028
Westlake Pipe & Fittings — Wichita County 31 Dec 2026
Graphic Packaging — Waco & McLennan County 31 Dec 2026
Compal USA — Taylor, 366,000 sq ft 31 Dec 2027

Each row carries the sentence that creates the obligation, the page it appears on, and the repayment clause where the contract states one.

Method

Locate, never compute.

Every value is quoted from the document and cited to a page. Nothing is inferred, averaged or reconciled. Where a contract is silent, the field stays empty rather than being filled with a guess.

A recital is not a covenant. A registry summary field is not a contract term. Two filings for one project are not two projects. Corrections get made within a day, because the citation is there to settle it.

Free, no signup

Name a county. I'll send you what's due in it.

Email me a Texas county and I'll send back every agreement in it with a deadline in the next eighteen months — quoted, page-cited, and checked. If there's nothing there, I'll tell you that instead.

[email protected]