Texas AI Docket

PUCT told an Armstrong County AI data center to shed its whole load, then left those conditions in place

Data centersPublic Utility Commission of TexasArmstrongWrite to the decider

The Public Utility Commission of Texas approved a net metering arrangement in Docket 59220 on July 24th, 2026. It lets a second AI data center complex share the point of interconnection and the settlement meter of GOODNIT1, a stand-alone wind resource in Armstrong County. The commission attached conditions. The second load has to curtail fully when ERCOT instructs, and it may not be offered into any demand response program the order names. Neither complex is running yet and the commission found ownership of the second load has not transferred to the company expected to operate it. Ensign Infrastructure asked the commission to remove the conditions on rehearing. The commission voted not to put that motion on any open meeting agenda, leaving the order in place.

How to take part

The whole docket is public and readable on the commission's Interchange under control number 59220, including the order, the ERCOT study filing and the motion for rehearing. The intervention deadline has passed, so a member of the public can't join this case as a party. The commission itself is reachable through Central Records in Austin and its open meetings are the room where a rehearing motion is taken up.

Where to do it

Where

1 county. In Amarillo.

Timeline

  1. filed

    Joint application for net metering approval

  2. filed

    Amended application naming Ensign as the large load customer

  3. filed

    ERCOT files its study results and recommendations

  4. ordered

    Commission order approving the arrangement with conditions

  5. filed

    Ensign Infrastructure files a motion for rehearing

  6. decided

    Commission votes not to add the rehearing motion to an open meeting agenda

  7. Today

How this decision moved

One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not.

  1. 2026-08-28

    Admitted on the commission's own order and the motion for rehearing, both read as filed documents. The arrangement is approved and the conditions stand while the rehearing motion is undecided.

  2. 2026-08-28

    What the commission ordered reaches the second load and names it. An earlier order on the first load carries its own curtailment condition and is a separate proceeding. The two are quoted separately here because the difference is the whole of what the rehearing motion disputes.

  3. 2026-09-01

    The rehearing path moved. Commission Advising records that the commission voted not to place Ensign's motion on an open meeting agenda, so the curtailment conditions remain.

  4. 2026-09-02

    Ensign Infrastructure's motion for rehearing is filed and the commission has since put a ballot memorandum on the docket, which is how the commissioners vote on it. The order telling the data center to shed its whole load stands until they do.

  5. 2026-09-05

    The Armstrong County order still tells the data center to shed its whole load and the conditions are still in place. Nothing has been lifted.

The evidence

Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own.

APPLICATION OF CRUSOE ENERGY SYSTEMS LLC, FGE GOODNIGHT I, LLC AND ENSIGN INFRASTRUCTURE LLC FOR APPROVAL OF A NET METERING ARRANGEMENT
PUCT Interchange, Filings for 59220, Case Style Primary source, official · interchange.puc.texas.gov
The Commission approves the net metering arrangement, subject to the conditions imposed by this Order.
PUCT Docket 59220, Order issued July 24th 2026, filed as item 69 Primary source, official · interchange.puc.texas.gov
Goodnight owns and operates GOODNIT1, a stand-alone 265.5-MW wind generation resource in Armstrong County.
PUCT Docket 59220, Order issued July 24th 2026, filed as item 69 Primary source, official · interchange.puc.texas.gov
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.
PUCT Docket 59220, Order issued July 24th 2026, filed as item 69 Primary source, official · interchange.puc.texas.gov
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."
PUCT Docket 59220, Order issued July 24th 2026, filed as item 69 Primary source, official · interchange.puc.texas.gov
the Crusoe One and Crusoe Two loads will be co-located with GOODNIT1 and interconnected at the GOODNIT1 point of interconnection
PUCT Docket 59220, Order issued July 24th 2026, filed as item 69 Primary source, official · interchange.puc.texas.gov
it is appropriate to consider both loads when evaluating the net metering arrangement for the Crusoe Two load.
PUCT Docket 59220, Order issued July 24th 2026, filed as item 69 Primary source, official · interchange.puc.texas.gov
Crusoe and Ensign must ensure that the Crusoe Two Load fully curtails its consumption in the manner directed by ERCOT
PUCT Docket 59220, Order issued July 24th 2026, filed as item 69 Primary source, official · interchange.puc.texas.gov
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.
PUCT Docket 59220, Order issued July 24th 2026, filed as item 69 Primary source, official · interchange.puc.texas.gov
When practicable, ERCOT must provide at least 60 minutes of notice in advance
PUCT Docket 59220, Order issued July 24th 2026, filed as item 69 Primary source, official · interchange.puc.texas.gov
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.
PUCT Docket 59220, Order issued July 24th 2026, filed as item 69 Primary source, official · interchange.puc.texas.gov
it would result in a total curtailment of 525.5 MW
PUCT Docket 59220, Order issued July 24th 2026, filed as item 69 Primary source, official · interchange.puc.texas.gov
GOODNIT2 does not yet exist, is not a part of the application, and should not be considered in this proceeding.
PUCT Docket 59220, Order issued July 24th 2026, filed as item 69 Primary source, official · interchange.puc.texas.gov
the Commission also imposed identical conditions in Docket No. 58872
PUCT Docket 59220, Order issued July 24th 2026, filed as item 69 Primary source, official · interchange.puc.texas.gov
The Commission denies all other motions and any other requests for general or specific relief, if not expressly granted.
PUCT Docket 59220, Order issued July 24th 2026, filed as item 69 Primary source, official · interchange.puc.texas.gov
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
PUCT Docket 59220, Order issued July 24th 2026, filed as item 69 Primary source, official · interchange.puc.texas.gov
exceeds what is required or authorized under PURA § 39.169
PUCT Docket 59220, Ensign Infrastructure LLC's Motion for Rehearing, filed as item 73 on August 18th 2026 Primary source, official · interchange.puc.texas.gov
Nor did the Order directly address the critical legal and policy issue of first impression that underlies this case
PUCT Docket 59220, Ensign Infrastructure LLC's Motion for Rehearing, filed as item 73 on August 18th 2026 Primary source, official · interchange.puc.texas.gov
the Order is excessive, arbitrary and capricious, unsupported by the evidentiary record, and not authorized by the language of PURA.
PUCT Docket 59220, Ensign Infrastructure LLC's Motion for Rehearing, filed as item 73 on August 18th 2026 Primary source, official · interchange.puc.texas.gov
the curtailment obligation should be calibrated to the size of the existing generator that is subject to PURA
PUCT Docket 59220, Ensign Infrastructure LLC's Motion for Rehearing, filed as item 73 on August 18th 2026 Primary source, official · interchange.puc.texas.gov
was served on all parties of record in this proceeding on this 18th day of August, 2026
PUCT Docket 59220, Ensign Infrastructure LLC's Motion for Rehearing, filed as item 73 on August 18th 2026 Primary source, official · interchange.puc.texas.gov
Ensign respectfully asks the Commission to grant rehearing and amend its Order to find that no conditions are necessary on Crusoe Two.
PUCT Docket 59220, Ensign Infrastructure LLC's Motion for Rehearing, filed as item 73 on August 18th 2026 Primary source, official · interchange.puc.texas.gov
Ensign respectfully raises points of error to Findings of Fact 57 and 58, Conclusions of Law 9 and 10, and Ordering Paragraph 1.
PUCT Docket 59220, Ensign Infrastructure LLC's Motion for Rehearing, filed as item 73 on August 18th 2026 Primary source, official · interchange.puc.texas.gov
BALLOT MEMORANDUM
PUCT Interchange, Docket 59220 filings Primary source, official · interchange.puc.texas.gov

Questions about this decision

Answered from the record itself. Every answer is assembled from stored fields, so an answer the record has no basis for is left out rather than guessed.

What is this decision?

The Public Utility Commission of Texas approved a net metering arrangement in Docket 59220 on July 24th, 2026. It lets a second AI data center complex share the point of interconnection and the settlement meter of GOODNIT1, a stand-alone wind resource in Armstrong County. The commission attached conditions. The second load has to curtail fully when ERCOT instructs, and it may not be offered into any demand response program the order names. Neither complex is running yet and the commission found ownership of the second load has not transferred to the company expected to operate it. Ensign Infrastructure asked the commission to remove the conditions on rehearing. The commission voted not to put that motion on any open meeting agenda, leaving the order in place.

Who decides it?

Public Utility Commission of Texas decides. The record names the deciding body for every entry it carries.

Can the public take part?

The whole docket is public and readable on the commission's Interchange under control number 59220, including the order, the ERCOT study filing and the motion for rehearing. The intervention deadline has passed, so a member of the public can't join this case as a party. The commission itself is reachable through Central Records in Austin and its open meetings are the room where a rehearing motion is taken up. No dated public window is on the record. The deciding body is named and reachable.

Where in Texas does it apply?

It covers Armstrong County.

Has it been decided?

It has been decided. The dates on the item page carry when.

What happens next?

No future date is on the record. The last dated step on it was decided on August 31st.

When did it start?

The earliest date on its record is January 9th, 2026.

What kind of decision is it?

It is filed under data centers.

What sources back it?

Four sources back it. Four of them are primary.

Is it on the ERCOT grid?

Yes. It sits inside the ERCOT interconnection.

When was it last checked?

Every fact on it was last verified against its source on September 5th, 2026.

Cite this

Texas AI Docket, PUCT told an Armstrong County AI data center to shed its whole load, then left those conditions in place. Tracked since January 9th, 2026. Last verified September 5th, 2026. https://texasaidocket.com/item/tx-2026-0108/. Reuse permitted under CC BY 4.0 with attribution. The same entry is in the docket JSON as item tx-2026-0108.

Beat

Filed under Data centers, with every other decision on that beat.

Last checked 2026-09-05