ERCOT Batch Zero: Verify the Project, Deposit Terms and Next Gate

Texas data-center projects face several separate checks: ERCOT eligibility verification, community-impact reporting, permitting and financial commitments. A project can advance through one while still waiting on another. For equipment buyers, the useful question is which requirement controls the named project’s next step.

Correction, October 18, 2026: the earlier version overstated a 9 GW limit on exposure, assumed equipment orders and exemptions from construction status, and described a uniform 20%-to-80% deposit change still awaiting a September decision. Those conclusions are withdrawn. The account below uses the September adopted rule and ERCOT’s current instructions. It also removes the unsupported blanket transmission-program suspension and guaranteed backlog-surge forecast.

Classification has advanced; permission to energize is separate

ERCOT’s August 3 notice said it would miss the August 7 Batch Zero classification notification while responding to the governor’s audit directive. That notice describes an initial delay, not the entire process as it stands today. (ERCOT market notice)

In its September 14-15 board update, ERCOT reported that it delivered conditional classifications to transmission service providers on September 3. The presentation identifies 362 large loads in the base or studied categories. Some classifications depend on resolving deficiencies or obtaining a good-cause exception; almost all not-yet-energized large loads remain subject to verification. A conditional classification is not a final approval or an equipment purchase order. (Board update, slide 5)

The same presentation describes paused approvals to energize new data centers and cryptocurrency-mining facilities of 75 MW or more pending the verification, audit and community-impact review. This is distinct from the administrative work underway. ERCOT’s current process page explains the verification procedure and says the individual RFIs in its RIOO response portal control over the published question-reference guides. Check the project’s actual request and response record. (Slides 3-4; current verification instructions)

Keep the dates attached to their obligations

ERCOT’s community-impact RFI currently covers developers of data centers of at least 25 MW pursuing interconnection. The RFI set an October 12, 2026 response deadline. ERCOT says it intends to publish the resulting report on or before December 10. The 25 MW reporting population is different from the 75 MW energization-pause population described in the board update. (Community-impact instructions)

December reporting does not establish a date for study completion or permission to energize. The September board update says the impact on the Batch Zero study timetable is still being determined, referring separately to the original April 9, 2027 study deadline. It does not establish a universal three-month delay or a date when equipment orders will release. (Board update, slide 4)

Permitting also has a newer record. In his September 21 letter, Governor Abbott directed TCEQ to pause issuance of permits related to data-center projects until ERCOT completes its review, and directed other state agencies not to advance related regulatory approvals until the requested audit information is acquired. TCEQ’s October 19 compliance update to the governor is a reporting deadline, not a permit-restart date. This letter does not establish the disposition of any individual permit or revoke every previously issued permit. (Signed TCEQ letter)

The financial-security rule was adopted, with an October effective date

On September 18, the PUCT adopted new 16 TAC section 25.194 with changes to the proposal. The official filing records an October 8, 2026 effective date. Adoption and effectiveness are separate dates; the earlier proposal is not a reliable account of the adopted rule. (Signed adoption order, printed page 270; effective-date filing)

The adopted text has separate provisions for new or expanded interconnections, Batch Zero loads and certain existing forecasting agreements. Its applicability section addresses customers not energized as of the effective date and specifies new-load, expansion and co-location cases. Do not infer a project’s treatment from its size or construction status alone. (Section 25.194(b), printed page 224)

The rule’s intermediate-agreement provision requires financial security of $50,000 per MW of requested peak demand for a new request, or of the incremental increase for an expansion. Multiplying that rate by 500 MW gives $25 million. That is an illustration of the formula, not proof that a named campus has posted that amount, that every Batch Zero category used the same terms, or that the entire amount is nonrefundable. (Intermediate security, printed page 235)

Batch Zero refunds depend on the category and the event

Section 25.194(h) specifically addresses security posted under ERCOT Planning Guide Section 9. Outstanding amounts owed must be collected before security is returned. Those amounts include identified interconnection costs and equipment, construction or services that cannot be canceled or returned for a full refund. (Batch Zero provisions, printed pages 259-261)

The adopted text then distinguishes the following cases. These are conditional rule provisions, not a refund calculation for a particular customer:

• Specified full-balance returns after costs: subsection (h)(1)(B) covers included loads under eligibility paths 9.2.1.1(1)(e) and (g), plus studied loads allocated zero MW across all study years, when the stated withdrawal conditions are met before the Standard Large Load Interconnection Agreement (SLLIA) deadline.
• Specified partial returns after costs: subsection (h)(1)(C) calls for deductions of 50% of security associated with allocated capacity for qualifying path (f) loads, or 20% for qualifying studied loads, when they receive some allocation and withdraw before the SLLIA deadline.
• Signing or missing the agreement: subsections (h)(1)(D)-(E) provide a return-or-credit option when a SLLIA is executed and possible forfeiture when a customer neither withdraws nor executes the agreement by the deadline.

The withdrawal procedure matters as much as the percentage. Subsection (h)(4) says the provider may process a written withdrawal only after ERCOT issues a study report allocating capacity and before the SLLIA deadline. The article’s old suggestion to withdraw immediately ahead of an assumed uniform forfeiture increase did not establish that this route was available. (Printed pages 261-265)

There are other distinct conditions. Subsection (g) uses a 24-month period for missed energization milestones, applied to the schedule as a whole. And subsection (h)(3)(B) preserves specified direct-interconnection cost treatment for Batch Zero agreements executed on or before June 1, 2025 while retaining other obligations. Neither is a blanket exemption from the new framework. A customer-specific assessment needs the agreement, category, allocation and applicable dates together. (Printed pages 258-259; printed page 264)

Build the equipment forecast from project records

No source reviewed for this correction establishes that only 9 GW is exposed, that all projects under construction have equipment ordered, or that early-stage projects cannot place orders this decade. Aggregate development categories cannot settle those questions. The previous BNEF-derived exposure limit, delay floor and developer-loss figures are removed from this procurement forecast.

For each project, record the current classification and unresolved conditions; the next verification, permitting and agreement milestones; the dated load profile; and the buyer’s approved equipment scope. Then confirm the order, cancellation terms, delivery commitment and any retained factory allocation with the buyer and supplier. Keep unconfirmed quantities separate from committed purchases.

That separation also applies across states. Our earlier moratorium article incorrectly treated Maine’s LD 307 as enacted. Its veto was sustained on April 29. We withdraw the inference that it automatically redirected projects to Texas or preserved the associated OEM orders. (Maine Legislature)

The Feeder is our free weekly briefing on procurement signals. Subscribe here.

Related Reading

• Data Center Moratoriums: Verify the Project Before Forecasting Equipment Demand
• Data Center Load Pipeline vs Contracted: How to Discount It