Firm connect vs faster path

A statutory curtailment hookup

SB 6 (a)

FACT Texas SB 6 (89th Legislature, 2025), enrolled, adds Utilities Code §39.170(a). The commission must require the independent organization certified under §39.151 for the ERCOT region to ensure that each electric cooperative, transmission and distribution utility, and municipally owned utility serving a transmission-voltage customer develops a protocol, including any necessary equipment or technology installed before the customer is interconnected, so the load can be curtailed during firm load shed. The utility confers with the customer to the extent feasible, to shed in a coordinated way. The subsection applies only to a load interconnected after December 31, 2025. It does not apply to load operated by a critical load industrial customer, as defined by §17.002, or to a facility designated critical natural gas under §38.074. The Legislature’s bill history lists the act as effective immediately. Enrolled text · bill history

Scope

ANALYSIS This is a legal curtailment hookup for those new transmission-voltage loads during firm load shed. It is not a tariff this page designed. It does not assign who holds the commercial risk of that curtailment. That question stays open below. The enrolled text of subsection (a) does not print a megawatt threshold.

October 6, 2026 workshop

What was posted

FACT ERCOT’s October 6, 2026 operations workshop deck walks through curtailment of co-located large loads under PURA §39.169 and of loads that can be served by on-site backup generation under §37.0561(e). It describes potential Protocol revisions for registration, real-time visibility, and a binding response. Feedback on those revisions, and on two related topics, is due by the end of the day on October 23, 2026. The same closing slide says a follow-up workshop will be scheduled in early November, and that ERCOT will consider the feedback before finalizing the revision requests. On the archived webcast, the presenter said the next workshop is scheduled for November 6, and that this date was absent from the slide deck. The September 2 market notice said the workshop would present a Large Load Curtailment Manager and draft NPRR, NOGRR, and PGRR text ahead of formal filing. The posted deck, and the webcast transcript reviewed on October 7, speak of protocol revisions and of revision requests still to be finalized. Market notice · Workshop deck · Meeting page · Archived webcast

Three cases

FACT The deck calls its backup-generation example illustrative and highly simplified. The assumed conditions stay put. What changes is how the load is called. Statutory timing, through the utility, without site telemetry: the example instructs firm load shed. The same timing and the same utility path, with the registration and telemetry the later slides describe: firm load shed still occurs. A near-term forecast start, with that telemetry, and with the first instruction going to the customer: the chart says no firm load shed is instructed. Slide 27 says the timing condition and the utility instruction path “may inhibit” ERCOT’s ability to use that curtailment to avoid EEA 3 load shed. Enrolled §37.0561(e) allows the direction to the utility after all available market services, except frequency responsive services, are deployed. Workshop deck · Enrolled text

Our reading

ANALYSIS Our reading of the middle case: registration and telemetry are present, the statutory timing and the utility path stay as §37.0561(e) writes them, and the example still sheds firm load. The deck asks for comments on protocol text. It leaves that statutory timing where the enrolled sentence puts it.

§25.521(g)

PROPOSED · not law As of the October 6 workshop materials, the posted deck contains no protocol text for the clawback criteria in proposed 16 TAC §25.521(g). Slide 5 says these workshops leave the Large Load Demand Management Service outside their scope. The proposal itself remains the Texas Register text in the next section.

What the enrolled act does, and does not, say

Dropped

FACT The enrolled act adds Utilities Code §37.0561. It does not contain §37.0562. The House committee report did. That version’s §37.0562 is titled “EXPEDITED INTERCONNECTION FOR CERTAIN LARGE LOADS.” It defines a flexible load and directs an expedited interconnection program, including queue priority for a load approved for that processing. That section is not in the enrolled text. This page’s “faster path” is a product distinction. It is not that dropped section.

§37.0561(e)

FACT Enrolled §37.0561(e). The standards must require each interconnected large load customer subject to subsection (c) to disclose on-site backup generating facilities to the interconnecting electric utility or municipally owned utility, and that utility must give the information to the independent organization certified under §39.151 for the ERCOT region. In this subsection, those facilities are generation that cannot export energy to the ERCOT transmission grid and that, in the aggregate, can serve at least 50 percent of on-site demand. The independent organization sets a threshold, before or during an energy emergency alert, at which it may give reasonable notice that those customers may be directed to deploy that backup or curtail load. After the organization deploys all available market services except frequency responsive services, it may direct the applicable utility to require the customer to deploy the backup or curtail load. A deployment under this section counts as firm load shed when the organization calculates price adjustments for reliability deployments. The subsection does not authorize or require an emissions-limit or other environmental violation, and it does not prohibit participation in a service under §39.170(b). Enrolled text

Proposed rule

PROPOSED · not law The Texas Register, August 14, 2026, prints a proposal for new 16 TAC §25.521, Large Load Demand Management Service, Project 58482. The preamble says the proposal would implement PURA §39.170. It was filed with the Secretary of State on July 30, 2026. That page prints an earliest possible adoption date of September 13, 2026. This pass did not open an adopted-rule text. Do not read the proposal as enrolled SB 6, and do not read it as restoring §37.0562. Subsection (g), as printed there, is Compliance. ERCOT must set criteria to reduce a qualified scheduling entity’s payment, claw back a payment, suspend that entity from the service, or any combination, when the entity fails its obligation under the section or a related ERCOT protocol. ERCOT must set criteria to suspend a large load customer for noncompliance, and criteria for later reinstatement. ERCOT must notify the commission of alleged noncompliance, and must keep records of alleged noncompliance.

Data centers not yet connected

The pause

FACT The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), the Texas grid operator, has paused approvals to energize data centers and virtual-currency mining facilities of 75 megawatts or more that are not yet connected. The pause runs until ERCOT finishes two jobs: a verification and audit of whether each large load provisionally included in Batch Zero, its one-time study of large loads seeking to connect, meets the eligibility rules in Planning Guide Revision Request 145, and a community impact review. September 14–15, 2026 board deck, slides 3–4.

Not covered

FACT ERCOT may still approve energization for large loads that are not data centers. Medium loads — at least 25 megawatts and less than 75 megawatts — are outside this pause and keep connecting through the utility’s usual approval to energize. Public Utility Commission of Texas Project No. 59142 filing, the slide “Energization pause on large load data centers and crypto facilities,” and the medium-load line on that filing’s key-definitions slide.

December

FACT The Batch Zero Eligibility Verification Report and the Community Impact Review Report are both due to the Public Utility Commission of Texas by December 10, 2026, and final decisions on which projects stay in that one-time study, and which are left out, come in December. The August 20, 2026 filing in Project No. 59142 lists a December 17 commission open meeting next to each December 10 report. Board deck, slide 4. Project No. 59142 filing, the timing slides for each report.

Questions

FACT The community impact questions go to developers of data centers of 25 megawatts or more that have not yet been energized, including virtual-currency mining. ERCOT’s September 11, 2026 presentation in the same project anticipated about 461 of those projects would receive the request, and said the request contains about 130 questions, the same ones for every recipient. A data center that is already energized does not get it. The questions cover public money and tax breaks, grid power versus power made on site, water sources and use, cooling, noise, light, traffic, and ownership. Answers, with a notarized attestation, were due at 5 p.m. Central Prevailing Time on October 12, 2026. Request page · Market notice M-B091426-01 · Question guide · September 11 presentation.

Our reading

ANALYSIS Opinion: for a data center already in the queue, the earliest a decision on its hookup can come is after the December reports, so the practical wait now runs through at least mid-December regardless of when its equipment is ready.

Reading

Board deck, September 14–15, 2026, Item 14 (slides 3–4). Project No. 59142 filing of August 20, 2026 (energization-pause slide; key definitions; December timing slides). Project No. 59142 presentation of September 11, 2026 (about 461 projects; about 130 shared questions; energized sites left out). Data center impact request page. Market notice M-B091426-01. Question guide, September 18, 2026.

City, county and town votes, October 6–13, 2026

These are land-use pauses. They are not ERCOT’s energization pause. That pause is not a zoning moratorium.

Raleigh

FACT October 6, 2026. The Raleigh City Council voted 7–1 for a six-month pause on development approvals for certain data centers. WUNC reported the tally. The ordinance text starts the pause that day and has it expire no later than April 6, 2027, or when the council adopts the resulting code amendments, whichever is earlier. The city FAQ and the city news page list April 6, 2027 as the end. That ordinance text exempts a principal-use minor utility data center under the city’s zoning interpretation — a combined footprint of 10,000 square feet or less, and peak demand of 5 megawatts or less — and a qualifying accessory data center at or under the same two limits. The posted ordinance file still shows a blank ordinance number. The vote tally on this row is WUNC’s report.

Brighton

FACT October 6, 2026. Brighton, Colorado, gave a unanimous first reading to a one-year ordinance on permits, licenses, and land-use applications where a data center is a proposed use. KDVR reports that the council amended that night’s item from 180 days to one year, and that a second reading is planned for October 20, 2026. This page does not treat the ordinance as adopted. The October 6 agenda still titles the introduced item as a 180-day moratorium, ID-284-26. The October 20 council meeting is on the city calendar. Minutes of the first reading were not on the agenda center when this card was written.

Lexington-Fayette

FACT October 8, 2026. The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council extended the existing countywide data-center moratorium through October 31, 2027. WUKY and CivicLex report that extension as 11–0. CivicLex notes that several councilmembers were absent. WUKY separates a 10–1 vote to suspend the rules from the extension, which it says then passed unanimously. As WUKY describes the pause, officials may not accept or review development plans, approve zoning changes, or issue permits for data centers. CivicLex dates the pause adopted in June through October 31, 2026, before this extension.

Charleston

FACT October 6, 2026. The Charleston, Illinois, City Council voted 5–0 for a temporary moratorium on data centers, battery energy storage systems, and related battery uses. MyRadioLink reports the tally and says City Manager Steve Bennett confirmed it. WAND reports a unanimous vote and a term through October 2027. The ordinance text on the October 6 agenda runs until 5:00 p.m. Central Standard Time on October 6, 2027, or until the city adopts new rules for those uses, whichever is first. Section 2.C of that text exempts an electrical energy storage system installed at and serving a one- or two-family dwelling, including a battery system paired with a residential photovoltaic system, when the system meets applicable building, electrical, fire, and other codes and permitting. The packet’s adoption line was still blank when this card was written. The 5–0 tally is the news report.

Dover

FACT October 12, 2026. The Dover, Delaware, City Council voted unanimously for an 18-month pause on new data-center and large energy-use facility applications, covering facilities using more than 30 megawatts. WBOC (October 12) reports the unanimous vote and the 18-month pause on new data-center applications. Spotlight Delaware (October 13) calls it the first such pause in Delaware. Councilwoman Donyale Hall said companies have expressed interest and that none has submitted a formal application. During the pause the city will study infrastructure, electric rates, and environmental impacts, and whether and how to regulate.

Arvada

FACT October 6, 2026. The Arvada, Colorado, City Council voted 7–0 for an 18-month moratorium on data centers that use more than 10 megawatts. Arvada Press (October 12) reports the tally and the 18-month term. Facilities under 10 megawatts can be exempt if the Director of Community and Economic Development finds the computing infrastructure is accessory and incidental to the primary use. The Press names hospitals, telecom and ISP facilities, and business server rooms as examples. During the pause the city will study impacts and recommend policy on energy, water, and siting. The city’s October 6 meeting recap records the same 7–0 vote for an 18-month moratorium on applications for new primary-use data centers, and says the city will study potential impacts during the pause.

Milwaukee

FACT October 13, 2026. The Milwaukee Common Council voted 13–0 for a one-year moratorium on new data-center development and on expansion of existing facilities. Urban Milwaukee (October 13) reports the tally, with two members excused. It applies to facilities of any size. It ends after one year or when permanent rules are adopted, whichever comes first, and Urban Milwaukee notes state law allows a six-month extension. Developers can still seek site-specific detailed planned development zoning, which needs Plan Commission and Council approval. The Department of City Development is to draft permanent rules. This page has not checked the city’s file number or ordinance text.

Forest Grove

FACT October 12, 2026. The Forest Grove, Oregon, City Council voted 7–0 to adopt Resolution 2026-47, a 120-day pause effective on adoption. News in the Grove (October 12) reports it covers new land-use and construction applications for a data center as a principal use, and expansions of an existing data center by 20 percent or more. It does not apply where land-use approval was already granted, which covers a project approved in 2024; future expansion or added-phase applications are covered. The council must review the pause within 120 days and extend or repeal it.

Bucksport

FACT October 8, 2026. The Bucksport, Maine, Town Council voted 5–2 for a six-month moratorium on data centers of any size. The Ellsworth American (October 14) reports the tally and quotes the ordinance: effective immediately, covering applications, permits, site plans, conditional uses and licenses for establishing, building, expanding or operating a data center, until zoning amendments take effect or 180 days after adoption. One dissenting councilor said a blanket pause was too broad and small and large facilities should be separated. Maine’s Data Center Advisory Council report is due to the governor and Legislature in January 2027.

South Berwick

FACT October 13, 2026. The South Berwick, Maine, Town Council voted 4–0, with one member absent, for a 180-day moratorium on data centers, retroactive to July 14, 2026. The Portland Press Herald (October 14) reports the tally and the retroactive date. Councilors said in September they knew of no proposals. The planning board is drafting permanent rules, and the town plans to use state recommendations due January 29, 2027; the council can extend the pause if work is progressing.

Blair Township

FACT October 13, 2026. The Blair Township board in Grand Traverse County, Michigan, voted unanimously for a one-year moratorium on applications, permits and approvals for data centers, after a crowded public hearing. WPBN (October 14) reports the vote. Residents raised electricity costs, water and noise. This page has not found the vote count, any size threshold, or the ordinance number.

Mount Pleasant

FACT October 13, 2026. The Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, Town Council voted unanimously on final reading for a two-year moratorium on accepting, processing or granting final approval of applications, permits and other requests for data centers (Ordinance 26045 on the town’s agenda). The Post and Courier’s Moultrie News (October 15) reports the unanimous vote and that a councilmember amended the length from one year to two; Live5 (October 13) reports the first proposal was 120 days. A councilmember said it covers only primary-use data centers greater than 1 megawatt, not businesses with ancillary data storage. The town’s planning director said data centers had been allowed by right in some business and light-industrial zones. The town will study locations and recommend zoning changes.

Elizabeth City

FACT October 13, 2026. The Elizabeth City, North Carolina, City Council voted unanimously for an 18-month moratorium on data-center applications, instead of adopting a pending text amendment to its Unified Development Ordinance. The Daily Advance (October 15) reports the vote and that the motion set 18 months to explore more ordinance language and public-utility agreements. The city manager said North Carolina law does not let a city prohibit a use outright. The city’s development services director said rumors that a data center was coming were untrue. No size threshold was reported.

Our reading

ANALYSIS Opinion: a zoning pause in Raleigh, Brighton, Lexington-Fayette, Charleston, Dover, Arvada, Milwaukee, Forest Grove, Bucksport, South Berwick, Blair Township, Mount Pleasant, or Elizabeth City does not pause an ERCOT energization approval. ERCOT’s hold on energizing certain data centers that are not yet connected is not one of these ordinances. This card is thirteen votes. It is not a count of every local pause. Denton’s code amendments, Perris’s ban and Johnson County’s extension of an earlier pause are listed separately and are not counted as pauses. Brighton’s one-year text had a first reading. A second reading was still ahead on October 20, 2026, when this card was written.

Reading

WUNC, October 7, 2026 (Raleigh, 7–1, six months). Raleigh data-center FAQ and city news page (October 6 approval; moratorium ends April 6, 2027). Raleigh ordinance text (April 6, 2027; minor-utility and accessory exemptions). KDVR, October 6, 2026 (Brighton, unanimous first reading, one year, second reading October 20). Brighton October 6 agenda (180-day item as introduced, ID-284-26). Brighton October 20 council meeting. WUKY, October 9, 2026 (Lexington-Fayette, 11–0 through October 31, 2027; rules suspension 10–1). CivicLex, October 8, 2026 update (11–0; several members absent; prior pause through October 31, 2026). MyRadioLink, October 8, 2026 (Charleston, Illinois, 5–0; residential battery exemption). WAND, October 6, 2026 (unanimous; through October 2027). Charleston ordinance text (through 5:00 p.m. Central Standard Time on October 6, 2027; one- and two-family dwelling exemption). Spotlight Delaware, October 13, 2026 (Dover, unanimous, 18 months, facilities using more than 30 megawatts; first such pause in Delaware). WBOC, October 12, 2026 (Dover, unanimous, 18-month pause on new data-center applications). Arvada Press, October 12, 2026 (Arvada, 7–0, 18 months, data centers that use more than 10 megawatts; exemption under 10 megawatts when the Director of Community and Economic Development finds the computing infrastructure accessory and incidental to the primary use). City of Arvada, October 6, 2026 recap (7–0; 18-month moratorium on applications for new primary-use data centers). Urban Milwaukee, Jeramey Jannene, October 13, 2026 (Milwaukee, 13–0, one year, two members excused; facilities of any size; this page has not checked the city’s file number or ordinance text). News in the Grove, Chas Hundley, October 12, 2026 (Forest Grove, 7–0, Resolution 2026-47, 120 days; single source; resolution text not fetched from the city site). Ellsworth American, William Tracy, October 14, 2026 (Bucksport, 5–2, six months). Portland Press Herald, Isabelle Oss, October 14, 2026 (South Berwick, 4–0, one member absent, 180 days, retroactive to July 14, 2026). WPBN/UpNorthLive, Amiyah Young, October 14, 2026 (Blair Township, unanimous, one year; single source; this page has not found the vote count, any size threshold, or the ordinance number). Denton Record-Chronicle, Christian McPhate, October 14, 2026 (Denton, 4–0, Development Code amendments; a code change, not a pause). denton.city, October 12, 2026 (schedule: a separate proposed moratorium’s next public hearing and first reading were scheduled for October 27; pre-meeting city schedule). Press-Enterprise, Jeff Horseman, October 14, 2026 (Perris, 5–0, permanent ban; first such ban in western Riverside County). Riverside Record, October 14, 2026 (Perris; second in the county, after Coachella). WBOI, October 14, 2026 (Fort Wayne; a proposed pause failed, 4–4, and a companion task-force measure failed 3–5). WANE, October 13, 2026 (Fort Wayne; proposed pause failed). Journal Gazette, Anna Kezar, October 13, 2026 (Fort Wayne; proposed pause failed, 4–4). Live5/WCSC, Victoria Blair, October 13, 2026 (Mount Pleasant, unanimous, two years; first proposal was 120 days). Post and Courier / Moultrie News, October 15, 2026 (Mount Pleasant, unanimous, two-year; a councilmember amended the length from one year to two; primary-use data centers greater than 1 megawatt). Mount Pleasant town agenda, October 13, 2026 (Ordinance 26045). Daily Advance, Christian Marnon, October 15, 2026 (Elizabeth City, unanimous, 18-month freeze on applications; single source; ordinance number, effective date, and end date not checked). KCRG, October 15, 2026 (Johnson County, Iowa, 5–0, extension through August 8, 2027 of a pause adopted in November 2025; not counted as a new pause; single source).

Related local actions, not pauses

Denton

FACT October 13, 2026. This is a code change, not a pause. The Denton, Texas, City Council voted 4–0 to amend its Development Code for data centers, the Denton Record-Chronicle (October 14) reports. Data centers are limited to light industrial, heavy industrial and public-facility zoning and need a specific-use permit. The amendments add a 300-foot setback and light-spill limits near homes, require water and wastewater impact studies and closed-loop or free-air cooling, and require applicable PUC and ERCOT approvals before an item goes on an agenda. A separate proposed moratorium has not been adopted; its next public hearing and first reading were scheduled for October 27.

Perris

FACT October 13, 2026. This is a permanent ban, not a timed pause. The Perris, California, City Council voted 5–0 to prohibit data centers citywide. The Press-Enterprise (October 14) calls it the first such ban in western Riverside County; the Riverside Record reports it as the second in the county, after Coachella. A city planning report said that if data-center demand caused rolling blackouts, Perris would lose power first because March Air Reserve Base has priority. No data center had been proposed in Perris.

Johnson County

FACT October 15, 2026. This extends an earlier pause; it is not a new one. The Johnson County, Iowa, Board of Supervisors voted 5–0 to extend the county’s temporary data-center moratorium through August 8, 2027, KCRG (October 15) reports. The pause was adopted in November 2025 for one year. County planning staff said they need more time to draft an ordinance. KCRG reports that as of July no data centers had been proposed in the county.

Fort Wayne

FACT October 13, 2026. A proposed pause failed. The Fort Wayne, Indiana, City Council rejected a 365-day data-center moratorium measure 4–4, WBOI and the Journal Gazette report, and a companion task-force measure failed 3–5. The measure would have paused council actions such as annexations, property purchases, contracts and tax abatements, and would not have affected the Google data center under construction. The Plan Commission is separately working on data-center zoning definitions.

Replacement for the grid that is already there

Grid Assurance

FACT A subscriber inventory of long lead-time transmission equipment, to restore the existing grid after significant outages. The EEI brief lists qualifying events: physical attacks, electromagnetic pulses, solar storms, cyberattacks, earthquakes, severe weather, and other external-force damage. gridassurance.com · EEI PDF

EEI STEP

FACT Sharing of committed spare transformers when existing equipment is deliberately destroyed. Access during a presidential declared emergency needs no further regulatory approval, per that EEI brief. DOE’s large-power-transformer assessment (report dated October 2016; posted January 2017) says STEP’s mandatory sharing starts when the President declares an emergency because of terrorism.

Not this

ANALYSIS Emergency replacement for equipment the existing grid already uses, after a qualifying event. Not a new-load interconnection. Not a jump in a manufacturer’s order book. No delivery time is stated here.

Published record only

NERC

FACT NERC’s incident review Considering Simultaneous Voltage-Sensitive Load Reductions (PDF dated January 8, 2025) describes the July 10, 2024 Eastern Interconnection event: a 230 kV fault led to a customer-initiated simultaneous loss of approximately 1,500 MW of voltage-sensitive load. None of that load was disconnected by utility equipment. The reduction was exclusively data center-type load. The data centers transferred it to their backup power systems. The review does not name a state, and it does not state a delivery time. No trip count is added on this page. NERC PDF

ERCOT LCL

FACT NPRR 1308, PUCT approved July 9, 2026, effective August 1, 2026, defines a Large Load as one or more facilities at a single site with aggregate peak demand of 75 MW or more, and a Large Computational Load as a Large Load in which 50% or more of site demand is power-electronic computational load, such as data centers and cryptocurrency mining. PUCT report

Ride-through

FACT NOGRR 282, same approval and effective date, adds frequency ride-through (Operating Guide §2.6.4) and voltage ride-through (§2.15) for those loads. An LCL must comply unless the customer demonstrates an exemption in those sections. PUCT report

Exemption

FACT One path: the LCL was operational and consuming power, or had written approval to energize from ERCOT, on or before November 14, 2025. Another path starts with the required interconnection or equivalent agreements executed on or before that date, and also requires notice to proceed and financial security by that date, plus either a Large Load Interconnection Study completed and approved by ERCOT by that date, or the TDSP attestation path with initial energization by December 31, 2026 and ERCOT’s written approval. The approved text does not require an LCL that meets the exemption to meet the new ride-through requirements, and it does not state a retrofit duty for a site that still meets it. A modification after November 14, 2025 that meets Planning Guide §9.2.1(1)(b) ends the exemption.

Three expedited paths

SPP

FACT FERC’s January 14, 2026 order in docket ER26-247 accepts SPP’s High Impact Large Load Generation Assessment, effective January 15, 2026, subject to a compliance filing that corrects listed ministerial errors. The order states that the HILL Generator Interconnection Agreement automatically terminates five years after the generating facility’s commercial operation date, and that the termination ends the Load Limited Resource Interconnection Service the agreement granted. A customer that wants the plant to stay interconnected past that five-year limit submits a separate request through SPP’s Definitive Interconnection System Impact Study. The Commission found a five-year limit on that service a reasonable part of the proposal, and noted that a plant kept interconnected longer than five years goes through SPP’s standard interconnection procedures, including the studies those procedures require. Order PDF

MISO

PROPOSED · pending MISO’s October 2, 2026 filing in docket ER27-25, eLibrary accession 20261002-5074, proposes a Large Load Addition Resource Study. Commission action on the filing is still pending. MISO asked the Commission for an order by December 2, 2026, the effective date requested in the letter, so the first study period can open in the first quarter of 2027. The commercial agreement must show a term of at least five years when the application is filed. Generation and load must stay paired for fifteen years after the load starts taking the transmission service granted through the study. If the load withdraws, stops using that service, or the commercial agreement ends during those fifteen years, MISO terminates the plant’s Large Load Generator Interconnection Agreement after a limited-operations transition of up to one year. That window extends for the length of a Definitive Planning Phase cycle if the customer enters the cycle and stays through an interconnection agreement. After fifteen years, the proposed text leaves that interconnection service in place if the load later leaves. Transmittal letter (pp. 2, 16–18, and 34)

PJM

FACT FERC’s June 9, 2026 order in docket ER26-1563 accepts PJM’s Expedited Interconnection Track in Tariff Part X. The FERC order accepting it describes no pairing term. The sentence is limited to that order. The tariff sheets were not read for this note. Order PDF

Our reading

ANALYSIS Opinion: our reading is that MISO’s design puts the early-exit risk on the plant owner and its lender.

Three places

TVA

FACT TVA’s Large Data Service rate took effect October 1, 2026, after Board approval on August 20, 2026. PowerCompute’s October 6, 2026 8-K exhibit, the company’s description of the tariff, states a Capacity Commitment Charge of about $1.5 million per MW on new or expanded data center load above the first 5 MW of contracted demand. FY2027 has a 2,000 MW cohort, first come, first served. CFO Tom Rice told the Commercial Appeal the charge is paid over three to five years. A spokesperson told WPSD Local 6 it is upfront and non-refundable. TVA’s August 10, 2026 board memo, exhibit 08/20/2026L, states three ways out of the charge. Load under a contract effective before October 1 is exempt. At initial implementation, an inflight request is also out of the charge. A new customer, or an existing customer asking to expand, is inflight when the load meets Schedule DC availability, the request is 100 MW or less, and by June 1, 2026 the customer met one test. It had requested and paid for a System Impact Study. Or the study was complete, and TVA had notified the distributor or the customer that no direct-assignment or network upgrades are required. Or it had a fully executed deposit agreement with TVA, with the customer who will sign the power supply contract. Existing loads may request a one-time, location-specific waiver of 5 MW or less for an expansion. Once that waiver is used at a location, the site cannot get another. Inflight status is lost if the customer fails to sign a deposit agreement, when one applies, within six months of receiving the completed study results. It is also lost if the customer fails to use 50 percent of contract demand within the later of two years after contract execution or one year after TVA finishes the needed transmission upgrades. Inflight load still faces TVA’s power interruption provisions. Inflight status cannot be assigned or transferred. TVA’s Vice President, Pricing and Contracts may modify the inflight criteria for a case the memo did not contemplate, if the change stays consistent with the memo’s intent. This page quotes that memo from a publicly posted copy. That copy is not hosted on tva.gov.

Duke

PROPOSED · pending Duke Energy filed a large-load tariff settlement with the North Carolina Utilities Commission on October 6, 2026. Approval is still pending. Duke’s release expects a decision by mid-November. It applies to customers of 50 MW or more, at an 80 percent load factor, signing an electric service agreement after June 1, 2026. Facilities that serve only that customer, such as a substation, take a nonrefundable upfront payment. Shared transmission network upgrades take a letter of credit equal to their estimated cost within 60 days of signing. After three consecutive months at 75 percent of contract demand, the letter steps down once a year over the remaining term. Early termination lets Duke draw the upgrades’ remaining net book value. An illustrative 500 MW example in the filing peaks the security basis at about $587.4 million.

Texas

FACT Enrolled §37.0561(f) requires a flat study fee of at least $100,000 for initial transmission screening studies on large loads under subsection (c). Unused fee credits the same site. Subsection (d) requires disclosure of a substantially similar in-state request that would change, delay, or withdraw the interconnection request. The September 18, 2026 order in Project 58481 adopts 16 TAC §25.194. The Texas Register receipt lists an effective date of October 8, 2026. No per-megawatt security figure is stated here.

Our reading

ANALYSIS Opinion: our reading is that TVA’s charge works like the price of a slot in a capped cohort. Duke’s is mostly a guarantee. Apart from dedicated facilities, the money is drawn only if the customer leaves early. Texas front-loads a screening-study fee, and the commission has already adopted a security requirement in Project 58481. The open question is which design does more to thin out speculative requests.

Five step-downs

Duke Carolinas / Progress

PROPOSED · pending Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress filed a large-load tariff settlement with the North Carolina Utilities Commission on October 6, 2026. Approval is still pending. Duke’s release expects a decision by mid-November. After the sixth anniversary of the initial provision of service, the proposed tariff lets the customer provide notice, one time, to reduce contract demand by up to 20 percent, and by no greater than 200 MW, without liquidated damages. This page prints no docket number. It leaves open whether the letter of credit in the row above is drawn on that cut.

Indiana Michigan

FACT IURC Cause 46097. Joint Exhibit 1 states that after the first five years a large-load customer may reduce contract capacity by up to 20 percent in total, without an exit fee or any penalty, by giving Indiana Michigan Power at least 42 months’ written notice before the PJM Delivery Year for which the reduction is sought. Indiana Michigan Power’s February 19, 2025 release says the Commission’s order approved the settlement, with one modification: a mutually agreed reduction of more than 20 percent of contracted peak capacity goes to the Commission for review and approval before it takes effect.

Dominion Virginia

FACT The Virginia State Corporation Commission’s November 25, 2025 news release on the final order in PUR-2025-00058 says Schedule GS-5 covers customers demanding 25 MW or more and takes effect January 1, 2027. The order in that case allows a give-back of up to 20 percent of contract capacity with 36 months’ notice, at no charge, and a further 30 percent if the capacity is reassigned, on a separate notice.

Evergy Kansas

FACT Evergy’s Kansas Schedule LLPS, approved in Kansas Corporation Commission Docket 25-EKME-315-TAR and effective November 6, 2025, applies to a new facility reasonably expected to reach a monthly maximum demand of 75 MW, and to an existing customer reasonably expected to expand by 75 MW. After the first five years, the Permissible Capacity Reduction is the lesser of 25 MW or 10 percent of Contract Capacity, in total, without charge. The customer gives written notice before the year the reduction takes effect, and at least 24 months’ notice. A reduction beyond that figure, after the same five years, takes at least 36 months’ written notice before that year, and a Capacity Reduction Fee.

Appalachian / Wheeling

FACT Appalachian Power and Wheeling Power, WV PSC Case No. 24-0611-E-T-PW. The application asked for five years’ written notice on a reduction of contract capacity of up to 20 percent. The revised sheets issued under the March 25, 2025 order state the approved term on Original Sheet No. 14-4 (Schedule L.C.P.) and Original Sheet No. 15-4 (Schedule I.P.). After the first five years of the Initial Contract Term, a Large Load Customer may reduce contract capacity by up to 20 percent in total, without an Exit Fee or any penalty, by giving at least 42 months’ written notice before the PJM Delivery Year for which the reduction is sought. Those large-load terms apply to new load, and to an expansion of existing load, of at least 100 MW at one site or 150 MW aggregated, after January 1, 2025. Contracted capacity already on the books as of that date stays outside those terms. A reduction past that 20 percent, or a termination, takes an Exit Fee on the same notice.

Our reading

ANALYSIS Opinion: our reading is that a free give-back is an offtake term a reviewer can hold in one sentence: a stated share of contract demand, a stated notice, and no fee inside that share. The five rows are five versions of that sentence. Duke’s version is still in front of the commission.

Pending rate request

Arizona Public Service has a request pending before the Arizona Corporation Commission to raise the base rates customers pay, and it asks large, steady customers such as data centers to cover more of the cost of the growth they add.

Base rates

PROPOSED · pending On June 13, 2025, Arizona Public Service filed for $662.44 million a year more in base rates (15.99 percent), and it reports a net increase to customers of $579.52 million (13.99 percent).

By class

PROPOSED · pending The requested increase is 47.03 percent for the class of large, steady customers such as data centers (Arizona Public Service calls it Extra High Load Factor), 16.44 percent for residential customers, and 15.99 percent for total retail.

Growth

PROPOSED · pending Arizona Public Service says it wants new general-service rate structures to “mitigate cross-subsidization” by customer classes that are not directly contributing to the costs caused by “significant and concentrated system load growth among large high-load-factor customers such as data centers.” It also proposes changing the Power Supply Adjustor allocation based on customer growth, and the System Reliability Benefit allocation based on load growth.

Formula

PROPOSED · pending Arizona Public Service also proposes a Formula Rate Mechanism: annual adjustments from the prior 12 months of costs and revenues, with residential adjustments limited to 0.85 to 1.15 times the annual average adjustment, and five annual adjustments before a new rate case. The public notice describes that mechanism as a general yearly adjustment.

AZCE

ANALYSIS An October 7, 2026 analysis by AZCE, that advocacy group’s own analysis, claims residential and small-business customers are on the hook for about $587 million in data-center costs. That number does not appear in the Arizona Public Service public notice.

Our reading

ANALYSIS Sources for the rows above. Arizona Public Service public notice, Docket No. E-01345A-25-0105. October 7, 2026 analysis by AZCE.