Texas PUC Lets ERCOT Miss Its Batch Zero Deadline for the Governor's Data Center Audit, and the Order Sets No New Date

Seventeen data center and crypto-mining loads in Texas have done everything ERCOT asks of a large load except get the final approval to switch on. Together they represent 6,608 MW of peak demand ramping over five years ^[3]. They are waiting on an audit that, under the order the Public Utility Commission of Texas signed on Thursday, August 20, has no end date ^[1,3].

The commission granted ERCOT three good cause exceptions in Project No. 59142 so the grid operator can verify data centers before it sorts them in Batch Zero, its one-time study of loads of 75 MW or more ^[1]. The vote was unanimous, according to Octus ^[6].

What the commission signed

Batch Zero comes from Planning Guide Revision Request 145, which the commission approved on June 18 ^[2]. It sorts each large load into one of three bins: base load already studied enough to count, studied load that needs more work, and load that does not qualify and waits for a later process ^[2]. Interconnecting utilities had until July 24 to report developers’ readiness attestations, and ERCOT had until August 7 to classify every load ^[2]. ERCOT planned to check the attestations during the study, which was to start in September ^[2].

Then Gov. Greg Abbott wrote to Chairman Thomas Gleeson and ERCOT chief executive Pablo Vegas on August 3. The letter says ERCOT is “currently considering approximately 474 gigawatts of requests to connect to the Texas grid,” about 90% of them data centers, and directs “a comprehensive verification and audit of all data centers advancing through ERCOT’s interconnection process before any additional data centers are approved to move forward” ^[4]. Projects that fail it “must be denied connection,” the letter says ^[4]. ERCOT paused Batch Zero the same day and missed the August 7 date ^[2].

The order excuses three things under 16 TAC §25.3(b) ^[1]:

• Classification. ERCOT need not classify large loads by August 7 under Planning Guide §9.3.1(2)(a).
• Stability studies. ERCOT may put loads that utilities submitted as base load, and that it has found eligible but not yet classified, into the August 1 and November 1 quarterly stability assessments. A large load must appear in one of those assessments before it can energize ^[3].
• Model review. ERCOT may send dynamic-data deficiency notices after August 7, and developers notified late get the same 24 days to cure.

Read the order for a new classification date and you will not find one. ERCOT’s presentation to the commission the same morning asked to “conditionally classify large loads by August 31,” which would start the dispute process in the Planning Guide ^[3]. The signed order says only that ERCOT may delay classification ^[1].

What it does to timing and cost

The stability-study exception is the one with megawatts attached. Six loads of about 1,959 MW were expected in the August 1 assessment, with energization projected for the first quarter of 2027; seventeen loads of about 6,874 MW are potentially eligible for November 1, projected for the second quarter ^[3]. Without the exception they would drop out solely because ERCOT had not finished classifying them ^[2]. Inclusion does not authorize energization; a load that fails verification waits for a later assessment ^[2].

The energization pause is narrower than the governor’s letter reads. ERCOT may still approve non-data-center large loads, and medium loads of 25 MW to under 75 MW keep connecting through their utilities ^[3]. Those medium projects do get questions. ERCOT counts 157 medium data center and crypto loads, about 8,766 MW, in an April snapshot ^[3].

Model quality is its own bottleneck. ERCOT has reviewed 290 dynamic models, and about 18% were acceptable on first review ^[3].

The paper trail moves downstream. ERCOT’s preliminary long-term forecast showed peaks of 278,003 MW in 2029 and 367,790 MW in 2032, figures ERCOT itself told the commission it had concerns about using ^[2]. On June 18 the commission let ERCOT rebuild that forecast from Batch Zero base load ^[2]. No classification means no final forecast, which delays the reliability assessment expected in November and could delay December’s Capacity, Demand and Reserves report ^[2,3]. ERCOT wants to wait rather than change methods ^[2].

Then the study clock. ERCOT has not asked to move the April 9, 2027 deadline for Batch Zero results ^[2]. Its general counsel, Chad Seely, said, “We will not have the study done by April 9, 2027,” according to Utility Dive ^[5].

ERCOT’s plan has two reports ^[3]. The eligibility verification sends requests for information through utilities, adds site checks for some loads with near-term energization dates, gives developers a chance to explain any inconsistency, and disqualifies loads that fail or do not answer ^[2,3]. The community impact review asks the governor’s questions: tax incentives and grants, on-site generation, water and cooling, noise and setbacks, and ownership ^[3,4]. Both reports are scheduled for December 10, with an open meeting December 17 ^[3].

Where the sides stand

Developers that filed in the project did not oppose the delay; they want limits on it. Ionic Digital asked the commission to confirm the exceptions are “procedural only,” that verification applies the existing criteria without new ones, and that ERCOT may classify verified projects on a rolling basis, because waiting on the whole queue “could create avoidable delays affecting financing, contractual commitments, construction sequencing, and planned energization” ^[8]. The order does not take up rolling classification ^[1].

Octa Data Center Development Company, which builds projects under 75 MW, asked that smaller projects answer only the community impact questions, and that projects inside city limits be allowed to certify their location and hand over municipal permits instead ^[7]. In unincorporated areas, where Texas counties have limited land-use authority, Octa supports a state review ^[7].

First Ammonia objected to ERCOT’s refusal to consider exceptions to the July 10 dynamic-model deadline, noting that ERCOT was asking for more time on the same models ^[9]. ERCOT’s tally of 41 eligibility exception requests puts 21 in the qualifying-study category it will not advance, two on the model deadline, and nine on financial security deadlines it may still bring to the commission by December ^[3].

Pallara, a software company, argued the exclusions so far are documentation failures rather than engineering findings, citing ERCOT’s July 29 Senate presentation: 688 large load projects assessed, 362 preliminarily excluded, and “approximately 205 GW” eligible ^[11].

Residents are in the record too. Matthew Horany of Archer County, about 4.5 miles from a proposed site he describes as a roughly 1,000 MW request, did not oppose the exceptions ^[10]. He asked that each project be audited and held individually, that project-level water, power, incentive and ownership details go on the public record, and that relief be “granted for a defined period tied to the completion of the audit, rather than on an open-ended basis” ^[10]. On that last point, the signed order names no period ^[1].

What I’m watching

August 31. ERCOT says it will issue conditional classifications by then ^[3]. That list is the first count of which loads survived to be verified at all.

December 10. Both reports are due under ERCOT’s plan, and the confidential version of the community impact report is to name loads that did not respond ^[3]. Whether the public version names projects at the level residents asked for is not settled in anything the commission has signed.