News Stories

Parties files comments on the Public Utilities Commission of Texas (PUCT’s) large load interconnection standards rulemaking including comments from the TPUC Chairman, Google and Lanicum, Cipher Digital, EdgeConnex, Engine 1, Hut 8, Nightpeak Energy and others.

Chairman Gleeson Memorandum –   “The draft rule would require large load customers to post financial security and pay interconnection fees calculated at $100,000 per MW.  I understand that Staff proposed this threshold to put an end to the frustrating transmission planning restudy cycle caused by a ceaseless stream of speculative large load projects claiming to desire immediate interconnection to the ERCOT system. While I strongly support the objective, I am concerned that the dollar amount proposed by Staff may unintentionally deter otherwise viable development.”

“The $100,000 per MW threshold may unintentionally create a barrier to market entry for all but the largest hyperscalers in the world, even if these smaller companies have viable, tangible projects under development. Moreover, the proposal to require payment of the financial security at the intermediate agreement stage – even before ERCOT conducts its interconnection study – could obligate customers to secure funding far in excess of the actual interconnection costs, creating unnecessary financial issues early in project development. To strike a more appropriate balance between reliability, cost protection, and market participation, I recommend reducing the requirement to $50,000 per MW.”

Cipher Digital Comments – “Cipher supports the Commission adopting durable, uniform standards that prevent stranded transmission costs; ensure large loads meet clear technical and reliability expectations; and require large loads to meet stringent interconnection criteria. However, Cipher respectfully recommends the Commission revise one key feature of Staff’s proposal because without doing so, the Project risks deterring otherwise viable and serious development in Texas that are prepared to interconnect responsibly and contribute to the State’s economy. Cipher’s sole comment on the Project is that the Staff should modify the proposed $100,000 per MW “non-refundable interconnection fee” so that it is instead partially refundable or creditable towards transmission and distribution charges based on objective milestones and documented costs, rather than being categorically non-refundable.”

Google and Lanicum Comments – “Google LLC and Lancium LLC (together, the “Joint Commenters”) appreciate the Commission’s efforts to implement PURA § 37.0561 and ERCOT’s reintroduction of the batch process. The current framework reflects several meaningful improvements, including:

• clearer gating criteria for entry into the batch and eligibility for energization;
• the absence of a major restudy during the batch refinement phase; and
• a more explicit linkage between the large load batch process and the Regional Planning Group (RPG) process.

Joint Commenters believe Project No. 58481 and the batch study process must be evaluated concurrently due to their inherently intertwined design and implementation. Accordingly, the comments in this filing focus on aligning intermediate and final agreement criteria with the timing, project maturity, and cost causation principles embedded in the batch framework.”

Joint Commenters suggest the following changes:

• Require the TSP to conduct a facilities study prior to the batch process and include it as a criteria for the intermediate agreement.
• The financial security posted for the intermediate agreement should be fully refundable.
• A preliminary steady state study should be provided within 30 days from the start of the steady state analysis. After that, $6.5M of the financial security should become non-refundable to continue in the batch process.
• Following the completion of the batch process final report, the large load customer should execute the interconnection agreement and pay the contribution-in-aid-of-construction (CIAC) or similar non-refundable financial obligations.
•  Following energization, the large load will pay a minimum transmission charge for five years.”

EdgeConnex Comments – “As stated in prior comments filed in this project, ECX supports the development of large load interconnection standards that are proportionate with actual risk, fair in application to all Large Load (LL) customers, and aligned with furthering economic development in the state. ECX, therefore, highlights the following five specific concerns with PUCT Staff’s proposed rule:

• Front loading of costly requirements in the Intermediate Agreement stage in proposed Section (d) when a LL customer has no clear line of site for interconnection and energization.
• The non-refundable interconnection fee of $100,000 per MW of contracted peak demand at the Interconnection Agreement stage in proposed Subsection (f)(7) is unnecessary given the fact that a LL customer will already have to pay 100% of its direct interconnection costs through contribution in aid of construction (“CIAC”) and post financial security for long lead time equipment or services and transmission system upgrades.
• The financial security requirements at the Intermediate Agreement stage and Interconnection Agreement stage have a compounding, pancaking effect.
• The 80/20% refund split between the interconnecting TSP and a LL customer in proposed Subsection (g)(3) and (4) that applies when a LL customer withdraws all or a portion of its requested or contracted peak demand and proposed subsection (h)(3) and (4) that applies when a LL customer fails to meet a milestone in its energization schedule is inequitable, is misaligned with cost causation principles, and serves as an unnecessary penalty on LL customers.
• All customer that pays, in full, for long lead time equipment should be allowed to take the equipment to another proposed site location.

Read additional comments that have been filed including the following:

Engine 1’s Comments

Hut 8 Comments

Nightpeak Energy Comments

Read all filed comments at docket link.