Texas Approves Batch Zero Rules and Speed to Power Framework (PCLR)

Coverage of the June 18 Open Meeting item on PGRR145

Track the agenda here: Project No. 54445 – Review of Protocols Adopted by the Independent Organization.

On June 18, 2026, the Public Utility Commission of Texas approved PGRR145 at its open meeting, taking it up as Item 28 (Project No. 54445) ahead of the remainder of the rules-and-projects agenda. The protocol revision, adopted by ERCOT as the independent organization, arrived before the Commission with a staff recommendation to approve.

Staff’s recommendation

Staff opened by noting that the ERCOT board had approved PGRR145 and that staff recommended approval of the requests and the proposed order. Staff observed that multiple comments had been filed as recently as the day before. On enforcement, staff emphasized that the protocol language is strong: although eligible entities provide attestations, ERCOT retains the authority to require supporting documentation, verify it at any time, and take action accordingly.

The lone public commenter

One person signed up to speak on the item: Chris Patten, counsel for a Texas-based large load developer. Patten supported the general intent of PGRR145 but asked for narrow relief. Specifically, he requested that the Commission condition its approval on a directive requiring ERCOT to prioritize and validate the completion necessary to determine baseload eligibility for the load associated with the developer’s RTP projects before July 10, 2026.

Patten framed the request around two principles. The first was fair notice — encompassing no retroactivity, due process, committed capital, and reliance on the rules. The second was that projects should be judged on the merits of their submissions and not penalized because ERCOT took longer than expected to act (let’s just say, the embedded grievance in our view is that the TSP took longer to act, making it harder for ERCOT to act).

His concrete grievance: as of the meeting, 250 MW of the developer’s load was eligible and 150 MW was not, despite being the same developer and the same project.

Patten expressly reserved the broader retroactivity and fair-notice arguments for a later proceeding.

His ask before the Commission was deliberately limited — condition approval of PGRR145 on ERCOT completing its review of the remaining 150 MW of RTP project load so that it could be reflected in a batch zero clarification.

ERCOT and staff on affiliate reliance

ERCOT addressed the affiliate-structure question raised in comments (we’ve covered those on the Luminary Strategies side of the Substack). PGRR145 establishes an eligibility framework keyed to maturity criteria on the interconnecting entity, satisfied through attestation. Several commenters had sought clarification on whether an entity may rely on an affiliate to meet those criteria.

ERCOT’s position was that the requested clarification is reasonable and would not impair its ability to administer the process, and that ERCOT plans to implement PGRR145 to allow reliance on affiliates. To do so, ERCOT said it needs bright-line criteria to confirm that a claimed affiliate is in fact the entity’s affiliate, and that it intends to apply the definition in 16 Texas Administrative Code § 25.5(3)(A)–(E) — a provision written for public utilities, but one ERCOT would apply here regardless of whether the entity is itself affiliated. A commissioner confirmed the citation on the record.

The refund-split exchange

The Chairman used this item to work through an open implementation question with staff, flagging that a related rulemaking is in process. The question concerns the treatment of refundable versus nonrefundable amounts. The proposal began as 80/20 nonrefundable, with discussion of flipping it to 20% nonrefundable and 80% refundable.

The Chairman posed a hypothetical: if a company requests roughly a gigawatt of capacity backed by a credit of around $50 million, and then decides not to move forward after allocation, does the nonrefundable percentage apply to the full request or only to the allocated amount? Jesse Horn, for commission staff, answered that the ratio would apply to the allocated capacity — once ERCOT has studied a request and identified the capacity it can provide, and the applicant then withdraws, that allocated amount is subject to the nonrefundable portion. The Chairman confirmed that retained funds are not held to be applied elsewhere; they go toward the cost the applicant imposes on the system. Staff agreed, adding that the purpose is also to protect against stranded infrastructure costs.

The vote

After a brief clarifying exchange on maintaining consistent implementation across the protocol and the pending rulemaking, the Chairman entertained a motion to approve. The motion was made and seconded, and it prevailed. PGRR145 was approved, with ERCOT’s affiliate clarification stated on the record.

**One point worth flagging: the meeting record does not reflect the Commission expressly adopting Patten’s narrow conditioning relief — the 150 MW review and the July 10 deadline. His request was raised, but the proposed order the Commission approved incorporated the affiliate clarification ERCOT described, not the conditioning directive he sought.**

The precedent for Speed to Power

PGR145 approval means that applicants seeking #speedtowpower with #PCLR, privately firming load deliverability, can confidently seek that treatment consideration in their entryway to the Batch Zero study process. Thanks to all of our collaborators - a marketplace of doers - for helping us bring first principles to the first market design that is ready-to-ship for large loads that actually solves reliability risk, transmission affordability, and siting loads to benefit all ratepayers, simultaneously. It is worth noting today that FERC announced a series of wind-around show causes and punted the market design decision to dozens of individual utility operators because that is the reality of the physics of making #speedtopower work. It is unavoidable. It is not red tape. The physics of a grid determine what solutions work - ERCOT is lucky that its regulator directly governs physics-based solutions. In ERCOT, we wrote the market standard and made it available to the public in 10 months because physical operator -to-regulator is a stone’s throw conversation. Much like #ADER, the #PCLR framework will go through maturity cycles, all of which we are stoked to work on and share with other grids.

Thanks for reading, bring us more subscribers y’all!

-A.S.F.