Plain-English background. ERCOT (Electric Reliability Council of Texas) runs the Texas grid that covers about 90% of the state's load — everything except a few corners that sit on SPP or Eastern Interconnection. ERCOT is unique among US grid operators because it's the only one that is NOT subject to FERC jurisdiction (the Texas Interconnection doesn't cross state lines, so it falls under PUCT — the Public Utility Commission of Texas — instead). That's why the FERC June 18 show-cause orders to the six RTOs explicitly did NOT include ERCOT. ERCOT does its own thing. ERCOT does not have a generation interconnection queue the way PJM does. It has a much faster interconnection process — historically you could get a generator interconnected in 6-12 months versus PJM's 4-7 years — which is why Texas has been the #1 state for new wind, solar, battery, and merchant-thermal builds for a decade. But on the LOAD side (the buyers), ERCOT historically just plugged loads in via the local transmission and distribution service providers (Oncor, CenterPoint, AEP Texas, etc.). Loads were not 'studied' by ERCOT the way generators are studied. The 2024-2025 surge in hyperscale AI data center announcements changed that. ERCOT projected ~50 GW of new load by 2030, mostly hyperscaler data centers and Bitcoin mining, on a system that peaks around 85 GW today. The local DSP/TSP-led process for connecting big loads broke — there were too many speculative interconnection requests, and ERCOT couldn't tell which were real, and the transmission planning process couldn't keep up. So through 2025, ERCOT + PUCT designed a new 'batch' interconnection process specifically for loads ≥75 MW. Batch Zero is the FIRST batch under that new process — the first time large loads will be studied as a coordinated batch, with a single transmission expansion plan covering the entire batch. Procedurally: - **NPRR1325 + PGRR145**: the two ERCOT protocol revisions that created the Batch Zero framework. ERCOT Board approved June 1-2, 2026. - **PUCT approval**: June 18, 2026. PUCT (the state regulator) had to sign off because the underlying tariffs change. - **Effective date**: July 10, 2026 — i.e., 13 days from today. - **Application path**: a large-load customer files with its local DSP (Distribution Service Provider) or TSP (Transmission Service Provider) — Oncor, CenterPoint, AEP Texas, or one of the smaller ones — by July 10. The DSP/TSP packages the application and submits to ERCOT by July 24. ERCOT runs the batch transmission study and assigns each project a 'classification' in August (essentially: is your project fully cleared, conditionally cleared, or needs further study). - **PCLR**: a Provisional Controllable Load Resource is a load that has committed to ERCOT's curtailment instructions during periods of localized grid stress, in exchange for an accelerated interconnection slot. It's the Texas equivalent of a 'flexible large load' product. PCLR is the path applicants take if they want Batch Zero clearance ahead of full transmission build-out. - **Final transmission plan**: published Fall 2027 covering the whole batch. - **Batch 1 applications**: open Summer 2027 (the NEXT batch). What this means for the calendar. Every hyperscaler campus in Texas — Stargate (Abilene), Microsoft-Dominion (San Antonio area planning), Meta Temple expansion, Google Midlothian expansion, the secondary-tier merchant builds — has the same 13-day window to file with the local TSP. The result will be the first time anyone has a clear, published count of how many Texas large-load projects are real vs speculative. ERCOT estimates Batch Zero could include 50-100 separate applications, but speculative-vs-real is going to be visible only after filing.
Why it matters
Three implications. (1) This is the operational forcing function the Cliff original wedge thesis was built around (per strategy/ercot-pclr-batch-zero.md). Cliff's Layer-5 beachhead was specifically scoped to the window between PUCT framework approval and the first batch's classification notices — i.e., between June 18 and August 2026. That window is now open. The next 6 weeks generate the first dataset of named campuses, named DSPs/TSPs, and named PCLR commitments anywhere in Texas. Cliff's corpus should be filing-tracking against every Texas DSP/TSP starting July 10 — these filings are public via PUCT IDs once forwarded. (2) The PCLR commitment is what distinguishes Texas's approach from PJM's. In PJM, the new 'flexible large load' product that FERC ordered on June 18 is a tariff-design exercise that will take 60+ days minimum to specify. In ERCOT, the PCLR product is already operational on July 10 — applicants can commit to curtailment in exchange for accelerated interconnection on day one. That gap (operational ERCOT vs paper PJM) is going to matter for hyperscaler site-selection: the path-of-least-resistance for any 100-500 MW load with anchor compute commitments and acceptable lat/long flexibility shifts toward Texas for the next 6-9 months, until PJM's tariff catches up. Watch for hyperscaler campus announcements in TX between July 10 and August that explicitly cite PCLR. (3) The first cross-regulator data point. Combining the August ERCOT classification dataset with the August 17 FERC RTO tariff filings (yesterday's edition) gives a single-month snapshot of how every US grid operator is operationally treating large loads. That month is the cleanest comparative dataset Cliff's corpus will ever have — every RTO + ERCOT on the same calendar, with structured filing surface — and it's the foundation for any 'state of US large-load interconnection' analysis the corpus produces in 2026-2027.
Related filings
ERCOT Batch Zero / 438000 MW queue / 90% data centers / 395000 MW DC load / July 10 Form W Part A deadline / July 24 ILLE to ERCOT / Aug classification cleared conditional further-study / Fall 2027 final transmission plan / PCLR optional accelerator / vs ERCOT 85000 MW system peak / 4.7x current system load
Plain-English version. Yesterday's edition framed July 10 as the ERCOT Batch Zero application deadline for large loads (≥75 MW). Today we have the actual scale number, which ERCOT's June 18 'Trending Topic: New Batch Connection Process for Large Electricity...
Oracle sued Wisconsin PSC Jun 19 Ozaukee County / challenging April tariff rule / $100M/year financial security / very large customer >20 MW sub-A credit / Oracle BBB / Port Washington $15B 672 acres 1 GW 4 buildings We Energies / statutory-authority + discrimination + due-process theories / parallel administrative reconsideration / first hyperscaler-vs-PSC ratepayer-protection lawsuit / template for VA SCC MD FERC IL DCIP TX SB6 / AWS BBB+ adjacent risk / expected 6-12 months to ruling
Plain-English background on why this lawsuit matters more than a single facility dispute. Multiple states have enacted or are enacting 'ratepayer protection' rules for hyperscaler-scale customers in 2025-2026: Virginia's SCC rate class (approved Nov 2025,...
FERC show cause orders Jun 18 / Section 206 / PJM MISO SPP CAISO ISO-NE NYISO / 30-day informational report Jul 20 / 60-day tariff response Aug 17 / 90-day abeyance request Aug 3 / five reform categories / cost-shift prevention is the big one / colocation + BTMG rules / flexible-load transmission services
Plain-English version. On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC, the federal regulator with jurisdiction over the interstate transmission grid) used Section 206 of the Federal Power Act to issue what are called 'show-cause orders'...
FL moratorium wave / Clay final + Hernando, Lake first reading Jun 23 / Santa Rosa 3-1 to draft / Zephyrhills final / 5-8 FL jurisdictions in 5 weeks / SB 484 backdrop / water-first concern
Plain-English version of what happened. Tuesday, June 23 was the single most active moratorium day Florida has had — three county boards moved separate ordinances forward in a coordinated wave. Clay County (just south of Jacksonville, ~220,000 residents) gave...