PGIQ Rating v2 (reliability-adjusted) · as of June 2026
2

🇺🇸 ERCOT (Texas)

Rated by region (Tier 2)
Tier 2 Strong · Rated by region: Tier 2 (open a region below for its rating) · Outlook Positive · High confidence · how we score

The benchmark for openness. The Texas grid operator (ERCOT) runs an energy-only market, meaning generators are paid only for the power they deliver, and it lets a large load connect quickly in exchange for accepting occasional cutbacks when the grid is tight. That is the fastest route to power in the United States, cheap gas lets a developer supply its own electricity, and the data-center build is already at scale. Carbon is the only weak spot, and it carries little weight in the default scoring.

See live grid data →
National overview. This country is rated by region for siting a large load; the sub-region ratings are the actionable ones. Rated regions: ERCOT West (West Texas & Panhandle) · ERCOT Central (Houston & DFW).

Regulatory momentum

The regulatory and permitting environment is increasingly the binding variable for a new large load.
Favourable→ stable

Why: Energy-only connect-and-manage (connect first, ease congestion later) keeps ERCOT the fastest large-load path in the US; the regulatory watch is readiness-tested queue management (a 75 MW threshold and posted security), not closure.

What would change the read: Restrictive new large-load interconnection rules following a major reliability event.

For new supply: Energy-only connect-and-manage is the fastest generation build path in the US, which is why supply and demand are racing each other here.

Beyond the grid: Water and local consent are the main non-grid frictions: a University of Texas poll found 56 percent of Texas voters, and 62 percent in rural areas, oppose a data centre in their community, and the state still does not require most centres to report water use even as it faces scarcity. Texas Tribune UT Austin

The five pillars behind the tier

Access30%88

Open and fast. The Texas grid operator (ERCOT) lets a large new load connect quickly and then manages any constraints, on the condition that it can be dialled back when the grid is tight, rather than making it wait years for firm supply. This is one of the quickest paths to power anywhere.

Availability25%62

Tight at peak but workable: summer scarcity is real, but cheap on-site gas (behind-the-meter) floors the practical availability for a developer who can self-supply.

Cost25%85

Cheap power and the cheapest self-supply: low wholesale plus abundant gas make Texas one of the lowest recurring-cost markets for a large load.

Momentum15%80

Proven momentum: more than 1 GW of data-center capacity and widely called 'the next Virginia'; ~233 GW of large-load interconnection requests, over 70% data centers.

Carbon5%55

Carbon is the weak pillar (~310 g), gas-heavy; immaterial in the default lens, but it pulls ERCOT toward Tier 2 under a carbon-weighted buyer.

Default weights, which lean toward cost and access rather than carbon: Access 30 · Availability 25 · Cost 25 · Momentum 15 · Carbon 5. Momentum reflects the data-center build already underway, not just stated intentions.

Reliability overlay

National reliability adjustment: the five-pillar score of 78 is reduced to 70, a deduction of 8 points. A national overview carries the average of its rated regions’ reliability adjustments (ERCOT West (West Texas & Panhandle) 8, ERCOT Central (Houston & DFW) 8), because a national view has to represent all of them, not only the strongest. The region pages carry the actionable ratings and their own adjustments. Reliability is reported as five separate layers, never as one combined label, because they answer different questions and a strong answer on one does not cover a gap in another: what has actually failed on the bulk system, what a forward assessment expects of firm supply, how the local network performs, what your contract actually promises, and what your site is designed to ride through. Any one of them can cap the tier.

Historical bulk-system performance: Minor flags found

Extreme-cold fragility was demonstrated in Winter Storm Uri (Feb 2021), when ERCOT ordered about 20,000 MW of rolling blackouts, the largest manual load shed in US history, with outages lasting days; freezing and fuel issues drove roughly 76% of unit failures. Post-Uri winterization rules have improved subsequent winter performance but the tail risk remains.

What this means: A large new load faces occasional exposure here. Monitor conditions and keep a contingency plan.

event-based · FERC/NERC Feb 2021 cold weather final report

Historical utility-territory delivery performance: No reliability flags found

Average customer interruption (SAIDI) of 97.27 minutes per year in 2024, excluding major event days as filed.

measured · EIA Form 861, Schedules 3B and 3C (annual electric power industry report) (two major-event methods, IEEE; respondent-defined, customer-weighted blend of 9 utilities, regional context only)

Role not yet declared. We have not recorded whether this is one operator’s filing or an average across several, so read it as context until we do. mixed methods: IEEE 59%; respondent-defined 41% of customers. Major event days are excluded throughout; the methods differ only in how those days are identified, a smaller difference than the spread between the utilities themselves. Constituents below carry their own standard. It is a territory-wide history and is silent on: performance at a specific substation or feeder; transmission-level service, which is a different product from distribution service; the industrial or large-load customer class specifically; N-1 or other redundancy architecture at the supplying substation; contractual curtailment (when a plant is told to stop feeding the grid) rights the utility may hold over the load; power quality and momentary interruptions, which this metric excludes by construction; on-site UPS, storage or generation; forward adequacy: it is a record of what happened, not a forecast.

Which utility would serve you?

The market figure above is an average across these territories. Your site sits in one of them, not in the average. Each row below is that utility’s own filed record, which is the evidence a Project Case can actually rest on.

Serving utilitySAIDI min/yrCustomersMajor-event method
Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC (TX)67.284,013,062own method
CenterPoint Energy (TX)150.092,847,806IEEE 1366
City of San Antonio - (TX) (TX)61.8938,905IEEE 1366
AEP Texas Central Company (TX)149.6913,164IEEE 1366
Austin Energy (TX)76.03557,039IEEE 1366
Pedernales Electric Coop, Inc (TX)57.44425,109IEEE 1366
Denton County Elec Coop, Inc (TX)26.9319,523IEEE 1366
Texas-New Mexico Power Co (TX)118.37268,934own method
AEP Texas North Company (TX)102.6199,119IEEE 1366

Filed to EIA Form 861 for 2024, excluding major event days. Territory-wide averages: see the layer note above for what they do not establish.

Forward resource adequacy (assessed): Tight

NERC's 2024 Long-Term Reliability Assessment rates ERCOT elevated-risk: about 20 GW of new large loads plus a more variable, less dispatchable resource mix raise the risk of long-term shortfalls.

What this means: A large new load should expect genuine exposure to forced power cuts (curtailment), price spikes, and delays in getting connected, and should design in backup power or firm supply contracts.

assessed · NERC 2024 Long-Term Reliability Assessment

Contractual service terms: interruptible available

ERCOT's open-and-fast access is explicitly conditioned on a large load accepting curtailment when the grid is tight, so the fast route to power is a non-firm route. Firm service is a different, slower product.

What the service contract promises, as distinct from how the system has performed · ERCOT large flexible load standards

Designed site resilience: not applicable at market level

Utility feeds, UPS, storage, on-site generation, islanding, black start and the residual energy you still expect to lose are properties of a specific site design, not of a market. This layer only exists once there is a site, and we never assert it for you.

Confidence: High. Each input is labelled as measured, modelled, or drawn from a specific event, and is framed as a risk to a prospective large new load, not as a verdict on any utility or grid operator. Forward adequacy is an assessment of what is expected, not a measurement of what has happened; it is a forecast and is labelled as one.

Reliability metrics

Delivery reliability (measured)

The average customer loses about 97.27 minutes of power per year (2024). This is the standard regulator outage measure (SAIDI); lower means a more reliable grid.

Source: EIA Form 861, Schedules 3B and 3C (annual electric power industry report) (two major-event methods, IEEE; respondent-defined, customer-weighted blend of 9 utilities, regional context only)

Hard, cited measures behind the reliability overlay above: the regulator outage series (SAIDI, measured, published with a lag) and the forward resource-adequacy assessment (a measured forecast). Framed as risk to a prospective large new load, not a verdict on any utility.

Interconnection queue (the line to connect to the grid)

These are generation and storage interconnection queues. They show how congested the interconnection system is. They do not measure how long a new large load waits, and their withdrawal rates are not load withdrawal rates. At the end of 2025, generation and storage projects totalling about 2,060 GW were actively waiting in United States queues, down 10% from a year earlier. Of the capacity that entered between 2000 and 2020, about 75% withdrew before connecting and only about 13% reached operation by end-2025. The typical project built in 2025 waited about 61 months from request to operation (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Queued Up 2026). Figures below are refreshed quarterly; each is labelled measured or modelled.

Active queue depth

408 GW

Typical wait

30 months

What builds the 30-month wait

3
9
18
Application & screening3 mo
Interconnection study & agreement9 mo
Construction & energization18 mo
Typical time to energization30 months
How the typical connection wait breaks down by stage. Stages overlap in practice and vary by project; the split is our estimate anchored to the operator process, and the total is the representative time to energization. Anchored to the operator process (ERCOT interconnection process).

The full queue analysis for this market, which covers the share of projects that give up and leave the queue (the withdrawal rate), how much of the queue is data centers, and the sources, is available through /api/v1/queue/ercot with a paid key. These are generation and storage queue figures: they show interconnection-system congestion, not a typical large-load connection wait.

Forward cost anchor

Siting a load is a decade-long cost bet, so the forward cost of firm capacity matters more than today's spot price. This is the public capacity-auction clearing price, the market's own forward read, not a paywalled forward curve.

Forward cost pressure

Elevated

Latest capacity clearing price

no capacity market (energy-only)

ongoing

Trend: No capacity auction; the forward signal comes from scarcity pricing and forward energy, not a clearing price.

ERCOT is an energy-only market with no capacity auction, so the forward cost of firm capacity is signaled through scarcity pricing (the operating-reserve demand curve) and forward energy rather than a clearing price. NERC rates ERCOT high-risk for forward adequacy from about 2029.

Source: NERC 2025 Long-Term Reliability Assessment (Jan 2026). A derived indicator: we publish the public clearing price and our read, never paywalled exchange data.

Realized cost band

What a large electricity user pays for power here on one declared case, 100 MW contracted demand, 95% load factor, HV service, per megawatt-hour. Not the wholesale price and not the sticker tariff: energy plus the grid, delivery and other charges that land on the bill. It is a range, because real contracts vary, and it is labelled by how it was built.

Recurring cost, delivered

$50 to $95 per MWh

Midpoint about $68 per MWh

How this band was built

triangulated

From 3 public fragments

What builds the $68 midpoint

$49
$12
Wholesale energy$49
Transmission & delivery (4CP)$12
Ancillary services$7
All-in delivered$68 /MWh
How the $68/MWh figure is built up, component by component, for 100 MW contracted demand, 95% load factor, HV service. The split is our estimate; the total is the midpoint of the compiled band (triangulated). Recurring cost only: customer-funded connection capital is a separate one-off and is not included. The non-energy cost is transmission, allocated on the four coincident annual peaks (the 4CP mechanism), plus ancillary services, which averaged about $7 per MWh in 2024. A large flat load can cut its transmission share by curtailing at those system peaks. Anchored to published figures (ERCOT 2024 State of the Market (Potomac Economics)).

Where the cost lands

$68
Low $50Midpoint $68High $95
A band, not a single price: the cheaper end is a well-structured contract on favourable terms, the higher end a less optimised one. The midpoint is our best central read.
What is in the number: Wholesale energy near $47 to $51 per MWh, plus transmission cost allocation (the 4CP mechanism) and ancillary services. Texas is energy-only, so there is no capacity charge.

The all-in band sits well below Virginia's because there is no capacity charge to carry, and a load that can curtail at the annual system peaks pays materially less than one that runs flat through them. Scarcity pricing during grid stress is the main upside risk to the number.

This market's band is free here; the ranked cross-market table with every market's precise midpoint is the Analyst Desk. See the ranked view.

Basis: triangulated from public sources, in US dollars per MWh delivered to a large high-load-factor load, excluding refundable taxes. Sources: ERCOT wholesale price outlook (EIA) · ERCOT market prices.

Data provenance and freshness

How solid the data behind this rating is, on two separate axes plus recency. Source reliability is how measured the numbers are, as opposed to triangulated or modelled. Coverage is how many of the decision-relevant data dimensions (reliability, connection, and cost) are compiled for this market. The two are kept apart because they answer different questions: a market can have strong sources on the little that is covered, or broad coverage that still leans on models. Neither grades the rating itself. The rating is a cited opinion, graded separately and falsifiably by the public track record and baseline measurement plan.

Source reliability

High

3 of 4 data layers measured

Coverage

Full

3 of 3 dimensions: reliability, connection, cost

Last reviewed

June 2026

per-layer vintages below

LayerMethodVintageFreshnessSource
PGIQ Rating opinionopinionJune 2026CurrentPGIQ methodology
Reliabilitymeasured2024FreshEIA Form 861, Schedules 3B and 3C (annual electric power industry report) (two major-event methods, IEEE; respondent-defined, customer-weighted blend of 9 utilities, regional context only)
Forward costmeasuredongoingFreshNERC 2025 Long-Term Reliability Assessment (Jan 2026)
Interconnection queuemeasuredend-2025 (LBNL 2026)FreshLBNL Queued Up 2026
Realized costtriangulated2026FreshERCOT wholesale price outlook (EIA)

Freshness reflects each layer's refresh cadence: reliability annual to three-yearly, capacity-auction and queue yearly, tariffs every year or two. The full cross-market freshness dashboard is at /data-quality.

Outlook drivers

↑ Upgrade triggers

  • Sustained build converts the large-load queue into operating capacity without reliability backlash.
  • Continued battery and solar additions lower carbon and ease the peak.

↓ Downgrade triggers

  • A repeat of a Winter-Storm-Uri-scale reliability event triggers restrictive large-load rules.
  • Political limits on new large-load interconnection.

Scheduled to change

Dated, already-announced events that will affect a large load sited here, in date order. These are published facts with sources, not our forecasts, and they matter most when your energization date is years out.
From about 2029
NERC flags an elevated energy-shortfall risk as large-load growth outpaces firm supply
The adequacy inflection a multi-year siting decision should price in, even with today's fast energization.
NERC 2025 Long-Term Reliability Assessment (Jan 2026)

Key risks

Peer comparison

Trades like
Alberta (open, energy-only)
Ahead of
Northern Virginia (more open, cheaper)
Behind
none in the US on speed-to-power

Evidence behind this rating

The real-world events that test our Tier 2 call for ERCOT (Texas): 3 support it. Each is dated and cited, so you can check the rating against what is actually happening on the ground.

PUCT approves ERCOT's Batch Zero process for connecting large loads ✓ Supports the rating
Jun 2026AccessMateriality: med

The PUCT approved (18 Jun 2026) ERCOT's Batch Zero framework, which studies readiness-screened large loads in batches with a Jul 2026 cutoff for the 2028-2032 study. Formal regulatory sign-off on the readiness-tested queue.

Source: ERCOT / PUCT ↗
ERCOT moves to readiness-tested large-load queue management as requests climb further ✓ Supports the rating
Jun 2026AccessMateriality: med

The large-load queue kept climbing through the first half of 2026, and ERCOT introduced evidence-based readiness screens (site control, permits, financing, equipment orders) to separate committed builds from speculative ones. A market disciplining a queue this large is one where large loads genuinely want to build, supporting the rating.

Source: Utility Dive ↗
ERCOT large-load requests reach ~233 GW, roughly 4x year-on-year ✓ Supports the rating
Dec 2025Momentum / AvailabilityMateriality: med

Over 70% from data centers; ERCOT models ~138 GW of large loads by 2030, the demand side now racing as fast as supply. Demand at this scale choosing Texas confirms the cheap, fast-to-connect profile behind the strong rating.

Source: ERCOT ↗
Cited, dated developments tagged to the pillar they bear on, and whether they support or challenge the current tier. A material item flags the market for analyst review and may drive a rating action.
🔔 Get alerts for ERCOT (Texas)
Be notified the moment this market's PGIQ Rating, outlook, or a material development changes. Free while we validate demand.

Rating history

Jun 2026
AffirmedLarge-load demand surge reviewed; fast connect-and-manage energization and cheap self-supply gas keep the fundamentals strong.
Trigger: ERCOT large-load requests reach ~233 GW (Dec 2025)
Jul 2026
DowngradeUnder the v2 reliability overlay, ERCOT is held at Tier 2. Fundamentals remain strong (78) and connect-and-manage energization is still the fastest large-load path in the US, but a NERC elevated-risk forward outlook plus the Winter Storm Uri record cap it below Prime.
Trigger: Methodology v2 reliability overlay; NERC 2024 Long-Term Reliability Assessment elevated-risk finding
Jul 2026
AffirmedTier holds. Formal PUCT approval of Batch Zero adds regulatory certainty to large-load access; queue discipline supports, not weakens, the rating.
Trigger: PUCT approval of Batch Zero, 18 Jun 2026
June 2026
New ratingNew rating: assigned, split into West and Central sub-regions.
🔒 The full time series behind ERCOT (Texas), how its score, recurring cost, and interconnection queue have moved month by month, is part of the Analyst Desk. The rating actions above are always free.
Every rating action is dated and explained, and the log is only ever added to, never edited. Reviews happen on a regular schedule and whenever a significant event occurs. "Affirmed" means we reviewed a development and the tier held; "Under review" means a significant item is being assessed and the rating could change.

Score history

How ERCOT (Texas)'s reliability-adjusted score and tier have moved, month by month. Part of your Analyst Desk.

Loading history…

How does ERCOT (Texas) compare to the other 79 markets?

This page is our full read on ERCOT (Texas) alone, and it is free. To decide where a large load should actually go, you need every market side by side, ranked on recurring cost and time-to-connect, with the history and alerts when your shortlist moves. That is the Analyst Desk.

With your Analyst Desk, compare ERCOT (Texas) against every market side by side, ranked on recurring cost and time-to-connect, with the full history and shortlist alerts.

+ Add to your shortlist Recurring cost, ranked Connection friction, ranked Get the Analyst Desk →