Queue Intelligence · Playbook
How we help developers file large-load interconnection in Texas under Senate Bill 6, the PUCT 58481 draft rule, the ERCOT Batch Study framework, and the new self-curtailment regime. A playbook written for the team about to submit the request, not a white paper written for investors.
The Texas context
ERCOT's large-load queue hit 226 GW at the February 2026 Open Meeting — four times the prior year. 73% of it is data centers. McKinsey is auditing ERCOT's process. The PUCT is in active rulemaking on §25.194. And every utility in ERCOT is rewriting its large-load tariff in parallel. A Texas filing today is not the same filing it was in October 2025.
ERCOT Feb 2026 Open Meeting
ERCOT board filing
ERCOT, McKinsey audit
Texas SB 6, 2025
Active deadlines we're tracking
How we run a Texas filing
The generic Queue Intelligence flow compresses to four steps. In ERCOT, each step has Texas-specific nuances that change what you file, in what order, and what the study will look like.
We take your load profile, capex, COD, and counterparty and check it against the draft §25.194 criteria. Our eligibility engine reflects the latest PUCT and ERCOT filings — not the guidance that was valid last quarter.
Includes the new 'self-curtailment capacity' calculation.
Small loads still run legacy full-study. Loads meeting the Batch Study criteria go through the new framework — dramatically faster, but with tighter upfront financial requirements. We model which path lands you in service first.
Financial readiness, POI shortlist, and study deposit modeling.
Every form ERCOT expects: GIR request, GINR, load profile template, SCADA specification, one-line diagram, financial readiness attestations, self-curtailment capacity calculations, and per-POI upgrade cost narratives.
Packages diff cleanly against the ERCOT model so reviewers can focus on the net-new facts.
Monitor every milestone — readiness review, study start, draft report, final report, commit window — with automatic alerts on slippage. When the final report drops, our engine pre-computes your commit vs. hold decision.
Commit windows under SB 6 are tight. We flag them 14 days in advance.
What changed under SB 6
ERCOT verifies the project satisfies financial, milestone, and control-area readiness requirements. SB 6 raises the bar: self-curtailment capacity, site control, and a credible COD all become conditions of advancing.
The new Batch Study framework groups qualifying loads into scheduled study windows with compressed timelines. The trade-off: projects that miss a window wait for the next batch, and projects that fail to commit lose their queue position faster.
PUCT 58481 introduces a generic load interconnection tariff concept that overrides the historical patchwork of utility-specific processes. The draft is in comment — the final rule will determine which parts of your existing process stay, which get replaced, and which become pre-conditions.
After a final study, projects get a short window to commit or withdraw. Under SB 6 the window is proposed at 30 days, with aggressive penalties for late commit. Our engine tracks every commit window across your portfolio.
Features
Every 345 kV and 500 kV substation in ERCOT, wired to the base case. We ingest the nightly cases, overlay the load queue, and surface realistic headroom per POI. Our graph is the most accurate developer-facing ERCOT view in production today.
SB 6 gives projects credit for committed self-curtailment capacity. We model it against your load profile — hourly — so you can negotiate a lower upgrade cost without over-committing the DC load.
Which projects in your cluster are likely to drop? Which readiness deadlines will slip? We publish a weekly queue prediction based on historical drop rates and a live readiness tracker fed by the ERCOT portal.
Every filing in 58481 (the SB 6 rulemaking), plus the large-load tariff amendments at Oncor, CenterPoint, AEP Texas, and Entergy Texas. Your queue strategy updates within hours of a filing, not weeks.
Each candidate POI gets a probabilistic upgrade cost envelope — P10/P50/P90 — calibrated to the historical ERCOT system impact study results. You negotiate in a range, not a point estimate.
Our ERCOT team has direct relationships with the planning staff at ERCOT and every relevant utility. Software does the heavy lifting; the humans handle the conversations that software cannot replace yet.
“We have outgrown the process that was established for reviewing these large loads.”
Next step
Send us a load profile, a candidate POI shortlist, and a target COD. Within 72 hours we reply with: your path under the draft §25.194, the realistic upgrade cost envelope per POI, a Batch vs. full-study recommendation, and a pre-filled submittal package ready for your engineering and legal teams.
No retainer, no implementation project, no slide deck. Just the answer, the package, and a plan.
Other playbooks
ERCOT playbook
We staff one ERCOT engineer per customer during active filings. Our generic queue graph handles the rest. Start with a 30-minute walkthrough.