The order stands and the question underneath it is open, Docket 59220
The deck
The story
Approved. The question underneath is still open.
Two AI data center complexes will sit behind one wind farm's own meter in Armstrong County.
A 260 MW load behind one interconnection.
"the Crusoe One and Crusoe Two loads will be co-located with GOODNIT1 and interconnected at the GOODNIT1 point of interconnection"
The condition is the whole load.
"Crusoe and Ensign must ensure that the Crusoe Two Load fully curtails its consumption in the manner directed by ERCOT"
Thirty minutes, or ten if they say so.
"Crusoe or Ensign may reduce the required time period from 30 minutes to 10 minutes by providing written confirmation to ERCOT of the Crusoe Two Load's capability to curtail within 10 minutes."
Alike is not the same.
"Goodnight owns and operates GOODNIT1, a stand-alone 265.5-MW wind generation resource in Armstrong County."
The applicants did the arithmetic.
Decided above. Decided below. Not between.
"Nor did the Order directly address the critical legal and policy issue of first impression that underlies this case"
"the Order is excessive, arbitrary and capricious, unsupported by the evidentiary record, and not authorized by the language of PURA."
What the order left out.
"GOODNIT2 does not yet exist, is not a part of the application, and should not be considered in this proceeding."
"The Commission denies all other motions and any other requests for general or specific relief, if not expressly granted."
The open door is in another proceeding.
"Ensign respectfully asks the Commission to grant rehearing and amend its Order to find that no conditions are necessary on Crusoe Two."
What was verified
The docket's official case style names the three applicants and what they asked for.
APPLICATION OF CRUSOE ENERGY SYSTEMS LLC, FGE GOODNIGHT I, LLC AND ENSIGN INFRASTRUCTURE LLC FOR APPROVAL OF A NET METERING ARRANGEMENT
The commission approved the arrangement and attached conditions to it.
The Commission approves the net metering arrangement, subject to the conditions imposed by this Order.
The commission's findings give the generator's capacity and the county it stands in.
Goodnight owns and operates GOODNIT1, a stand-alone 265.5-MW wind generation resource in Armstrong County.
The commission found Ensign is the intended customer the applicants say will take over both loads once they are built.
Ensign is the intended large load customer that the applicants state will take over and operate both the Crusoe One and Crusoe Two loads upon their completion and energization.
The commission's findings give both data center complexes their size and put both in Armstrong County.
Crusoe is the current owner and developer of two AI data-center complexes located in Armstrong County: a 265-MW data center complex referred to as "the Crusoe One Load" and a 260-MW AI data-center complex referred to as "the Crusoe Two Load."
The commission found both loads sit at the generator's own point of interconnection.
the Crusoe One and Crusoe Two loads will be co-located with GOODNIT1 and interconnected at the GOODNIT1 point of interconnection
The commission gave its reason for weighing both loads together rather than only the new one.
it is appropriate to consider both loads when evaluating the net metering arrangement for the Crusoe Two load.
The order's first condition requires the second load to come off entirely when ERCOT instructs it.
Crusoe and Ensign must ensure that the Crusoe Two Load fully curtails its consumption in the manner directed by ERCOT
The order sets a 30 minute window and lets the operators cut it to 10 minutes by telling ERCOT in writing they can.
Crusoe or Ensign may reduce the required time period from 30 minutes to 10 minutes by providing written confirmation to ERCOT of the Crusoe Two Load's capability to curtail within 10 minutes.
ERCOT gives notice ahead of the instruction where it can, as a floor rather than a fixed period.
When practicable, ERCOT must provide at least 60 minutes of notice in advance
The order bars the second load from every demand response program it names.
Crusoe and Ensign may not allow the Crusoe Two Load to be offered into or to participate in any ERCOT or transmission or distribution service provider (TDSP) demand response product, program, or service, including without limitation any Ancillary Service, ERCOT's Emergency Response Service, any ERCOT-procured contract for capacity, or any TDSP load management program.
The order records the figure Ensign and Crusoe argued the two conditions add up to. It is their contention and the commission does not adopt it.
it would result in a total curtailment of 525.5 MW
Commission staff and ERCOT answered that a second wind resource which has not been built should be left out of the case.
GOODNIT2 does not yet exist, is not a part of the application, and should not be considered in this proceeding.
The commission had imposed the same conditions once before, in the case the order calls the only other one to reach a final decision.
the Commission also imposed identical conditions in Docket No. 58872
The order refused every request it did not expressly grant.
The Commission denies all other motions and any other requests for general or specific relief, if not expressly granted.
The commission found the second load has not changed hands and that Ensign may yet not be the customer.
ownership and control of the Crusoe Two Load has not yet transferred to Ensign, making it less than certain that Ensign will replace Crusoe as the large load customer
The company that will operate the load says the order goes beyond what the statute allows.
exceeds what is required or authorized under PURA § 39.169
The motion says the order left the central legal question unanswered.
Nor did the Order directly address the critical legal and policy issue of first impression that underlies this case
The motion states how it characterizes the order.
the Order is excessive, arbitrary and capricious, unsupported by the evidentiary record, and not authorized by the language of PURA.
The motion argues the duty should be sized to the existing generator the statute is about.
the curtailment obligation should be calibrated to the size of the existing generator that is subject to PURA
The motion names the day it was served.
was served on all parties of record in this proceeding on this 18th day of August, 2026
The motion asks the commission to delete the conditions rather than shrink them.
Ensign respectfully asks the Commission to grant rehearing and amend its Order to find that no conditions are necessary on Crusoe Two.
The motion names exactly what it is challenging.
Ensign respectfully raises points of error to Findings of Fact 57 and 58, Conclusions of Law 9 and 10, and Ordering Paragraph 1.
Comments in the commission's review of the system-wide offer cap programs are due September 17th, 2026.
Comments are due by September 17, 2026.
The motion dates the order it is challenging.
July 24, 2026 Order (the "Order") exceeds what is required or authorized under PURA § 39.169.
The commission's own filing receipt dates the motion for rehearing.
Filed Date - 2026-08-18
The separate proceeding's own case style names what it is reviewing.
QUINQUENNIAL REVIEW OF SYSTEM-WIDE OFFER CAP PROGRAM UNDER 16 TAC 25.509(d)
The order names the meter the loads share, and gives it the abbreviation the frame prints.
will share the existing ERCOT-polled settlement (EPS) meter used for GOODNIT1
The commission's own calendar classifies 59550 as a Project, on the entry carrying the September 17th public comment deadline.
Project 59550 NA ( Open To Public )