News Stories

In Texas in the PUC’s rulemaking to establish large load forecasting criteria the proposed rule would define LLCs as single sites with aggregate loads of 10MW or more behind one or more common points of interconnection (POI) or service delivery points.  Excerpts from comment filed by parties are highlighted below.

Data Center Coalition – Threshold of 75 Megawatt for Criteria for Inclusion
“ERCOT offered comments in support of the Commission’s proposed 25 MW threshold for including customers in large load forecasting.1 While DCC recognizes the intent of a 25 MW threshold to improve the accuracy of ERCOT’s econometric models, the focus should be on improving the models, not on expanding the definition of large loads. Several groups have offered comments in support of the 75 MW threshold including the Texas Competitive Power Advocates (TCPA),2 the Texas Industrial Energy Consumer (TIEC),3 the Texas Public Power Association,4 and others. These positions are consistent with ERCOT’s current definition of a arge load, which is one or more facilities at a single site with an aggregate peak demand of at least 75 MW Additionally, PURA Sec. 0561 (c) provides the Commission the authority to set the threshold at 75 MW threshold unless the Commission finds a need to include facilities with lower peak demand. Ultimately, the intent of SB 6 was to ensure that Texas accurately forecasts transmission needs for large loads rather than obtain potentially extraneous data that alters the focus of the legislation. As such, a threshold of 75 MW for inclusion in the large load forecasts is the appropriate measure to achieve this goal.”

“Acceptable Form of Financial Commitment”
The Office of Public Utility Council (OPUC) proposed the following Section (D) to the rule proposal’s language “to establish uniform financial commitment requirements for the development of transmission infrastructure needed to serve a large load customer” under PURA §37.0561 (h). DCC supports maintaining consistent financial commitment requirements across SB 6 rulemaking. This will ensure the regulated community has a clear understanding of the regulatory requirements they need to comply with SB 6, As such, the DCC supports OPUC’s recommendation to include the following language in PURA §37.0561 (h).”

“Moreover, DCC recommends that the Commission consider a range of options for companies to demonstrate commercial interest without imposing administrative burdens on regulators, utilities, or large load customers. Because the specifics of commercial dealings, site selection, purchases, and leases vary widely, we believe that a balanced, adaptable approach allowing for multiple methods of demonstrating site control should be accepted.”

Texas Industrial Energy Consumers – The Commission should define large loads using the 75 MW threshold. 

The vast majority of commenters support setting the size threshold for large loads at 75 MW. As LCRA explained, the definition of large load was carefully vetted in the ERCOT stakeholder process for Nodal Protocol Revision Request (NPRR) 1234 and Planning Guide Revision Request (PGRR) 115.1 There were no documented suggestions to modify this threshold during the stakeholder process, including from ERCOT, and ERCOT previously stated that it could obtain sufficient data on loads 25 MW or larger without any additional rule changes . 

“Applying all of the SB 6 requirements to loads between 25 MW and 75 MW will be administratively burdensome, will cause ERCOT to exclude real loads from its forecasts, and will chill economic activity. Despite Sierra Club’s suggestion, ERCOT’s forecasting models already include loads that are in the size range of 25 MW to 75 MW.3 Currently, these loads are represented through ERCOT’s established aggregation framework within profiled or base economic load classes. 4 Although there may be flaws in the analysis, as ERCOT suggests, 5 subj ecting loads smaller than 75 MW to the same onerous upfront financial requirements and progress markers creates a greater risk of undercounting these loads”

“A 25 MW threshold also conflicts with the Commission’ s directives under SB 6. Specifically, as numerous commenters explained, PURA § 37.0561(a) allows the Commission to select a lower demand threshold based on a compelling rationale that balances the objectives of: (i) load forecast accuracy; (ii) administrative complexity; and (iii) regulatory clarity.7 At this time, there has been no data to suggest that a threshold lower than 75 MW is appropriate or needed for any purpose under PURA. Oncor and other TSPs noted that smaller, non-data center loads between 25 MW and 75 MW, which have been interconnecting successfully to the ERCOT grid for decades, do not present the same reliability impacts or cause the same level of transmission expansion as loads over 75 MW.8”

Read all comments here

58480
(Rulemaking To Establish Large Load Forecasting Criteria PURA 37.0561