Transmission: the ratepayer responsibility

Texas built its electricity market to react quickly to changes in demand, attract private capital, and protect ratepayers from private-sector investment risk.

A wave of large load interconnection requests is testing that model.

In this conversation, Katie Coleman, a leading Texas energy lawyer and partner at O’Melveny & Myers LLP, describes the pressure points facing the ERCOT grid. Officials are scrambling to determine which loads are real, how quickly they will arrive, and how the state should build transmission and other infrastructure to support them.

Coleman brings ERCOT’s challenge into focus. She explains how customers behave differently — signing different contracts, facing different operating constraints, and placing different demands on the system — and grid managers have to juggle those variables.

She also walks through a basic divide in the Texas market between generation and transmission. Private investors assume the risk of building generation. But with transmission, regulated utilities must get permission from the PUC to build power lines and then charge consumers for them (plus profit margin) over time.

As interconnection requests climb and forecasts shift, these infrastructure decisions will become increasingly important — for the ERCOT grid and Texans’ power bills.

The episode explores a range of issues, including:

* How ERCOT and policymakers should judge new load forecasts.

* Why transmission planning is a central constraint.

* How Texas can preserve market discipline while serving growth.

Coleman also points to the importance of regulatory stability. As large customers, generators, and utilities make long-term decisions about growth and investment, they need an energy market they can read.

That predictability becomes even more crucial, Coleman says, as Texas debates how to respond to unprecedented demand growth.

Timestamps

* 00:00 - Introduction & Katie Coleman

* 01:05 - Katie’s Energy Origin Story

* 04:01 - Why She Represents Industrials

* 05:55 - What Large Power Users Want

* 08:56 - Speed to Power in Texas

* 10:57 - How Industrial Demand Response Works

* 17:04 - Crypto, Data Centers, and Misperceptions

* 20:43 - How the Energy-Only Market Works

* 28:27 - Load Forecasts and Transmission Risk

* 36:46 - Bringing Generation With New Load

* 38:49 - Why Texas Needs Stability

* 40:32 - Final Reflections & Close

Resources

People & Organizations

* Matt Boms (LinkedIn)

* Texas Advanced Energy Business Alliance (Website - LinkedIn)

* Energy Capital Podcast (LinkedIn - YouTube)

* Katie Coleman (LinkedIn)

* O’Melveny & Myers LLP (Website - LinkedIn)

Related Podcasts by Texas Energy & Power

* Who Pays for Texas Grid Growth? - Roundtable Discussion

* More Power That’s Faster and Fairer

* Where the Grid Goes from Here | Reading and Podcast Picks - Feb. 4, 2026

* Another Winter Storm Bears Down on Texas | Reading and Podcast Picks - Jan. 23, 2026

Transcript

Matt Boms (00:05.198)

Today, I’m really excited to be joined by Katie Coleman, managing partner of the Austin office at Olmelvney and Myers. Katie is one of the leading energy regulatory attorneys in Texas. She has more than 15 years of experience representing large industrial energy customers in ERCOT and before the Public Utility Commission of Texas. She’s best known for her work representing groups like the Texas Industrial Energy Consumers, TIEC, and the Texas Association of Manufacturers, TAM.

helping shape some of the most important conversations around energy markets and policy in the state. Katie has also been deeply involved in the industry more broadly. She served as president of the Gulf Coast Power Association, and she previously led the state bar of Texas public utility law section. And across the energy community in Texas, she’s widely respected as one of the very best regulatory lawyers in our business. So Katie, thank you so much for making time for us, and thanks for joining the podcast today.

Katie Coleman (01:03.726)

Absolutely glad to be here.

Matt Boms (01:05.558)

I wanted to start with a layup and I wanted to ask you to just walk us through how you first got into energy. Like what is your origin story and how did you end up in this business?

Katie Coleman (01:15.182)

Yes, so I have no qualifications. I have no business doing this job that I’ve now been doing. My bio actually, I need to update it. This is actually the 20th year when I first started in the industry, which I count as when I clerked when I was in law school, which then turned into a permanent job. I spent the summer doing this, finished law school, and then came back in 2006. So it’s been 20 years now.

I went to UT undergrad. I was a liberal arts major. I did a small honors program at UT called Plan To, which people at UT are familiar with, but a lot of other people aren’t. But it is just an interdisciplinary liberal arts honors program. So I had no idea what I was going to do. And I did that very cliched thing where I took the LSAT to see how I did and then ended up in law school. Even in law school, I had no idea that I was going to end up in this field.

So I’m not from Texas. I’m actually from outside of Asheville in North Carolina. And Austin felt like a huge city to me when I was in school here. And in law school, I looked at jobs in Houston. I looked at jobs in Dallas. I actually split my summer in Austin and Dallas. And Dallas just felt unmanageable for me being from a very small mountain town. And so I really focused on Austin. And obviously there’s a big regulatory workforce here.

in Austin with the capital and all the state agencies. And so the firm that I clerked with, which was at the time Andrews Kerr, this was a big part of the work they did. So I tried several different sections and really liked the policy aspect of the energy practice. And the partner that originally hired me, I think took me around and met some of the clients, met some of the stakeholders that we were going to interact with regularly. And it seemed like a good fit. So he,

hired me on a little bit of a whim. And here we are. I feel really lucky. It’s been a really good fit and I’ve really enjoyed it, especially all of the people that we work with, I think make this a really unique, special industry. And I think that’s what I picked up on when I was looking at options. And so I’ve kind of learned it as we’ve gone and I’ve had great mentors that are very credentialed and do know a lot of things about power markets and

Katie Coleman (03:36.706)

just industrials in general that have taught me everything I know along the way. So that’s really been key.

Matt Boms (03:42.978)

That’s awesome. And when you say 20 years, I’m sure it probably feels like where did those 20 years go? Cause the time goes by so quickly.

Katie Coleman (03:49.806)

You know, it felt like that for a while and then in 2021 it stopped feeling like that. From 2021 until now it feels like it’s been like another 20 years.

Matt Boms (04:01.036)

Yeah, well, I guess the last part of the origin story is like, did you come to represent the large industrial customers? Like, how did the door open for you and how did you take that path?

Katie Coleman (04:10.296)

So I inherited it, is the short story. The group of attorneys that I started my career with, who I still work with, have a legacy that goes all the way back to the original adoption of the Public Utility Regulatory Act, and back in the 70s. And at that time, there was a lawyer in Houston, he was at a different firm, Mayor Day Caldwell and Keaton at the time. Jonathan Day was involved in writing Pura.

along with some other attorneys. And when the bill passed, they sort of divided up, you know, who was going to take which sector of the industry, who was going to work with the utilities. And Jonathan in Houston, with the Ship Channel and with strong industrial relationships, decided he was going to represent the industrial users. And so he then trained another attorney who then trained another attorney who then trained me. And so we have kind of a lineage back to the seventies representing these same clients.

And I think that’s really been official for the group’s advocacy because we do have a lot of history about how we got to be here, how different policy changes have actually impacted industry over the years. And it just helps to have that knowledge base to draw from and sort of the institutional experience. So it’s a pretty unique thing. And actually, if you look in Texas, there’s a lot of groups that are that way, like the cities, the...

city’s representatives, they’ve had a lineage of representing those stakeholders back for a long time. Some of the firms that represent utilities, you know, like I think about the relationship with MakerBot and Centerpoint, for example, you know, that goes way, way, way back. So it’s actually a pretty common thing, but that’s how it happened. I sort of joined the group, inherited this legacy.

Matt Boms (05:55.768)

That’s also, it’s also a great reminder that you think that this current generation of folks that work in our industry just showed up one day, but it is great reminder that there’s a whole line of people that came before us in our current roles that really carved out these roles and like made the industry what it is today. I love that you mentioned that. Well, I want to jump into industrial customers that you represent and kind of talking us through maybe spelling out and explaining some of the misperceptions there are about large power users. So.

Just to kick this off, what do large power users prioritize when it comes to electricity markets in general?

Katie Coleman (06:32.248)

So above all, they want reliability. They’re not primarily in the power industry. They’re primarily making widgets of some variety to sell in global markets. The number one thing that they want is to make sure that they’re going to have a reliable source of power that’s not going to damage their equipment, not going to cause them to lose product or feed stocks, not going to cause health and safety risks to their employees. So that is far and away the number one concern.

But of course, they’re businesses and so they care about cost. And in particular, they care about the ability to contract, to meet their individual business priorities and all of my clients are different. They all have sort of different profiles. They’re all in manufacturing of some variety, but different products, different sectors, and even within a sector, different goals. And so one of the things that has been

A real driver for businesses to site in Texas has been the flexibility that the deregulated market provides because you can have one customer who just cares about having price locked in and wants to hedge and is agnostic about fuel source. You can have other customers who really care a lot about green certifications and things like that. They can contract in a certain way.

You have other types of customers that maybe are flexible and can turn off if prices are too high. Maybe they don’t want to hedge in the same way that other types of customers do. And so our market really provides an endless suite of options for large industrial users. So I would say reliability and cost. If you ever hear me testify at the legislature, I often start with, this is sort of like the time honored, Tam talking point on electricity.

Electricity for a manufacturer in Texas is typically one of the top three production costs. Often it’s number one or number two. And for some of our members, it’s up to 70 % of their production costs. So it really is a driver in siting and expansion decisions and which assets, you know, our company’s choosing to operate at any given time. And it’s something, like I said, that people look at when they’re choosing where they want to build, where they want to be.

Matt Boms (08:47.298)

Yeah, correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s been the secret to our success in Texas is the abundance of electrons and low prices compared to other markets.

Katie Coleman (08:56.236)

Yes, I’ll say another thing that’s come into the forefront lately, which is not something I focused on a lot until maybe the last 10 years, but it’s definitely accelerated is speed to market. So getting interconnected has become a lot more challenging, not just in Texas, but across the country. And it has to do with this data center AI boom. But of course my clients are competing with.

all of the transmission voltage large load clients are customers are competing to get interconnected. And there’s only so many utility resources, only so many crews, only so much capital, only so much infrastructure that can go around. And so being able to get a quick and predictable interconnection has also become a real priority in a way that it’s not something I probably would have talked about.

well, maybe five years ago, but not 10 years ago, certainly. And five years ago, really only in areas that were experiencing oil and gas booms, West Texas has been an issue. Trying to get service out there has been an issue because they really needed to upgrade the transmission system and the import paths into West Texas. But other than that, you didn’t really have issues with going to the utility and asking to be interconnected.

and getting an uncertain answer or a really protracted timeline. So that’s something that’s changing rapidly that, like I said, it’s happening around the country, but it’s become more of a focal point in Texas recently.

Matt Boms (10:28.758)

Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, that’s speed to power has become like our thing in Texas, right? In other parts of the country, it’s just not as quick as it is here. Well, I wanted to ask you about the kind of demand response issue and when we do have grid stress events in Texas, I’m just curious how industrial customers respond to those grid stress events. And if you can just dispel maybe some of the ideas there are around how that works. Can you explain it to us? Like a two year old, how does demand response work for the industrials?

Katie Coleman (10:57.326)

Yeah, so again, it’s not homogenous, but there’s different varieties of response that you see. I’ll start with, we’ve got one set of customers who are what we call high load factor, which they’re using 95 % plus of their maximum possible demand at any given time. And those customers tend to not be price responsive, they tend to not be flexible. So when a grid emergency occurs,

You know, they will try to do their part to the extent they can and try to reduce usage to the extent they can, but you’re not going to get major response out of those sites. They just don’t have that capability because the reliability is so essential. Some of them may have invested in their own generation at the site. And so that’s something that can sometimes be utilized to provide additional electrons to the market in times of need. You know, they might have a generator that they don’t typically run, but they can turn on.

And again, they might be able to curtail a little bit, but there’s a whole category of customers that are not able to provide a lot of response. I would say that is well over 50 % of industrial sites are in that category and are not actively participating in the market. I think that’s a misconception that all industrials have their own trading desks and are all offering an ancillary services and responding to price. For most of them, it’s around the margins.

So you might get some response. certainly watch it. They certainly, you know, are aware of market conditions, but they’re not actively responding. You have another category of customers who can do things if really necessary. You know, they can do things at their site. They can reduce their usage, but it’s really only when they, like a winter storm, you’re a event or, you know, something that’s kind of foreseen that they can prepare for.

Then you’ll have customers that can do things at their site to reduce usage even further. And then you’ve got this other category of customers who are really actively participating in the market in one way or the other. So some of them provide ancillary services as load resources. Some of them participate in a program at ERCOT called Emergency Response Service. The profile of those customers is a little different. So the ones that are in responsive reserve service have to respond really, really quickly.

Katie Coleman (13:23.062)

like within a few cycles when they get an instruction from ERCOT. So they’re able to ramp down really quickly. They have to offer into the ancillary service market, you know, in the day ahead market if they want to provide that service. ERS providers, they’re not called on as often. They’re contracted seasonally, so they don’t have to actively offer into the market. And they have a little longer response time, so they don’t have to respond quite as quickly as responsive reserve providers.

Then you have another category of customers who will opportunistically respond. So they may not be offering into a formal service like ERS or like responsive reserve service. But if prices are high and it looks like they’re going to stay high, they might reduce their usage for economic reasons. And so there’s a category of customers that actively does that. There’s probably some overlap in the ERS responsive reserve and price responsive. But again, I would say that’s probably like

25 to 30 % of industrial sites. It’s not monolithic and it’s not everybody. But the thing that I think people have a major misconception about is the ones who do that, there has been this narrative that it’s a moneymaker for them, that by selling into ancillary services when prices are clearing up the cap, that they’re making money. And that is so far from the case.

I’m not aware of any client that has ever actually made money on a net basis providing ancillary services. It is a mitigation tool for what is overall a major cost for industrial. So a typical manufacturer in Texas will spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year on electricity. Offering into ancillary services is a way to mitigate some of those costs, but never under any scenario are they profiting.

from making money in the market, if that makes sense. And so I think after, for example, Winter Storm, URI, and some other events right after that, there were narratives about large users profiting from an unreliable grid, and that’s just the furthest thing from the truth. They want reliability, but remember that price signals are there to elicit behavior. You know, if that’s an issue, you’ve got a fundamental issue with competitive markets and supply and demand, because the whole

Katie Coleman (15:49.07)

point is you send a higher and higher and higher price to encourage users to stop using energy, to stop utilizing that resource that’s being priced at scarcity pricing. That’s why you do it. And so our clients who are, you know, sophisticated global businesses will respond to that price, some of them in certain circumstances, and that’s what you want. And actually, I think we should really be aiming collectively as an industry to get more of that response, not just from

my clients, but also from residential and commercial clients. That’s sort of the key to a well-functioning market is that price elasticity.

Matt Boms (16:29.88)

really appreciate you spelling that out. And I almost wonder if the misconceptions around large load behavior, because the large loads themselves have changed so much over the last few years. Like you’ve been doing this for 20 years and I just wonder like how much the profile has changed of those large loads in the past couple of decades, right? Like you didn’t have crypto miners 20 years ago.

You definitely didn’t have the volume of data centers that we’re seeing now. So can you speak to that a little bit? Maybe that’s part of the reason why policymakers and regulators are a bit confused about the way large loads behave.

Katie Coleman (17:04.609)

Definitely. So the cryptocurrency build out a few years ago took things that industrials have typically done in moderation and took it to sort of extremes. And the reason for that is obvious and just purely financial. The whole crypto business is basically converting electricity to cryptocurrency. There’s no other real feedstocks or, you know, there’s nothing else in the calculation. Right.

It’s electricity in, cryptocurrency out. And that’s different from a traditional manufacturer where we’re also making other products and with other feedstocks and with customers that have contracted with, you know, my clients for offtake agreements that they have to fulfill or be subject to, you know, damage clauses. So it’s a much more complicated calculus for an industrial to decide how and when to curtail usage.

because you’ve got to balance all of those things. Like, how am I doing on my production quotas? How many times have I curtailed this month? You know, there’s all kinds of things that go into that analysis. I think with the cryptocurrency, like I said, it’s a more purist application of this. And so you saw more dramatic response, more sort of predictable response, and at a larger scale. And I think there were companies in that space that were

touting their sophistication and efficiency for investors as businesses do, and talking about either the money they saved or the profits they made by liquidating power they bought forward into the market or selling ancillary services or some variety of that. And so I think that got regulators’ attention because they’re thinking, well, you’ve got residential and commercial customers at risk of...

power outage and then you’ve got these large companies that are making money off of it. But the piece of the logic that’s missing there is the behavior of those large customers is going to reduce the likelihood that there’s any reliability event for the residential and small commercial customers. And so you want that behavior. And I think you have to acknowledge sort of like the rational economic outcome there. If we’re sending a price trying to get people to portray all you can only

Katie Coleman (19:26.22)

have so negative a response if they respond to that signal, right? It’s ultimately what you want, but it certainly highlighted some things that the market was designed to elicit, but maybe weren’t as familiar to people. I think since Winter Storm URI and since some of the new trends and large loads starting with crypto and now getting into sort of larger AI data centers, there’s been a lot more...

public awareness and public knowledge around these issues, which I think is good. I think the narrative on this stuff has actually gotten a lot more rational and sophisticated over the last four five years just because of this sort of education that was forced through all of these major changes that we’re experiencing.

Matt Boms (20:12.066)

think also Texans are just like more fluent in energy than the rest of the country. Like we’ll just understand our energy bills, I think a little bit better because of the deregulation and retail providers and all that stuff. Well, we’re getting into like market design and I want to get into the weeds a little bit. And maybe you can help us understand how the energy only market is supposed to work in theory and whether the price signals that we’re seeing now are enough to bring in all the investment we need for reliability.

Katie Coleman (20:43.468)

Yeah. So go back to like a regulated model, because I like to compare what the energy market is supposed to look like to a regulated model. So in a regulated model, customers pay actual cost for energy and for power plants. So when you say, I’ve got your utility, you’ve got this load growth coming, you go and you say, I need to build this power plant. Here’s the most economic option to meet this need.

And then that goes into customer’s rates and they pay for it over the life of the power plant at actual cost plus a built-in return for the utility, a built-in profit for the utility. And they get the energy that that plant produces at actual cost. And that is an important difference that you’re getting energy at actual cost in a regulated model. In the deregulated model, the whole concept was we’re going to take that financial risk

of the capital investment for a power plant off regulated rate payers and we’re going to put it into the private sector. And we are going to let businesses compete for who can build the best mousetrap and who can meet the needs most efficiently. And in exchange, we’re not going to have customers pay the capital costs of power plants, but we’re not going to give them the energy at cost. We’re going to set a clearing price for the energy.

So that means whoever is the most expensive power plant that’s running, they set the price and everybody that’s cheaper than that power plant, they get a profit. And so the concept was all of those more efficient, cheaper power plants would get built and you’d have an incentive to continue building like more efficient power plants because they would continue to get this clearing price that’s gonna be set by older, less efficient technologies.

with a higher heat rate, et cetera. And you’re gonna get this financial risk off of Texas customers. Texas has historically been a very pro-markets state philosophically. And so there was a belief that as technology changed, as market needs changed, that a competitive construct would be more flexible, faster, and better suited to meet those needs, which I strongly believe

Katie Coleman (23:03.224)

continues to be the case. And it’s one of the reasons why one of the consultants that we work with a lot, Charles Griffey, he often says the energy only market works in practice, but not in theory. Because in theory, everybody’s like, the missing money and da da da da, which I’ll address what that is in a second. But we’ve for 25 years now had all these predictions that we’re going to have a reliability problem. We’re not going to have enough generation.

It never materializes. And part of that is because fundamentally, regulators can’t see more than a couple years down the road. They are not as good at rationalizing market incentives and dynamics as, again, the private sector. And so you can try your best to predict what’s going to happen, but in a market, you’re always wrong, right? And we’ve now got 25 years of experience showing that, that we’ve continued to replace plants, to get plants built.

get different types of technologies integrated in a way that has overall been reliable. Now, Winter Storm URI, I think probably people who are listening to this podcast right now are thinking, what about URI? Is it a reliable grid because of Winter Storm URI? And again, what I think people who are not in the industry don’t understand about URI is that was not really an issue of how much generation we have in Texas. It was an issue of the generation performing.

We had 50 % of our gas fleet was on outage and no system in the world is designed to continue to provide power when you have 50 % of your generators on outage. It’s just not economic. It’s not realistic to have that level of a reserve margin. I’d have to go back and look, but I want to say our reserve margins at that time were like 25 % or something. I mean, it was a healthy reserve margin by any standard, but we had...

weatherization issues, every variety of issues. There were plants that were getting water from nearby cities whose water lines froze or busted. I mean, it just couldn’t get workers to the plant to clear alarms after there was a unit trip. Every variety of issue that you would expect for a state that is not used to those types of temperatures for a sustained period of time. So all that to say, yes, URI was a terrible event.

Katie Coleman (25:22.262)

a lot of lessons learned, but it really wasn’t an indictment. It was not an indictment of the fundamental construct of the energy market. The other thing I would say is this missing money problem that people talk about. The missing money theory is, as I described earlier, one of the generators sets the price, whoever’s the most expensive generator sets the price, and then all the more efficient generators get a profit from the inframarginal rents between their actual cost and the

clearing price, right? But the question is, well, the unit that’s setting the marginal clearing price, when do they make money? Okay, and this is like a very oversimplified view of how the market actually works. But that is the missing money problem is, you know, that that entity that’s setting the clearing price, they don’t get money to reinvest in capital to keep their plant running or to build new plants or anything like that. And so in theory, that’s going to put retirement risk on those plants on the margin.

The reason that is not true is because we do have administrative scarcity pricing of various types. So we have features in the market where prices are not actually set by that last unit. So when we start getting toward emergency events, there’s actually administrative pricing that kicks in, that sets prices far above any unit’s actual cost. And so it’s the ability to show up and perform during those periods

that can really drive investment for the units that can reliably perform, the types of units that can reliably perform. And from the consumer standpoint, that’s a really efficient market design. You’re only paying people to be there when you need them, to provide energy to you when you want it, and to perform when the grid needs it most. And you’re not making sort of like fixed payments, irrespective of what’s happening on the grid for a generator to just exist.

And so that’s one of the reasons that I think Texas’s market has been more efficient, lower cost, and has performed really well compared to other markets around the country.

Matt Boms (27:28.652)

That was an awesome explanation. And it’s like, I said that all the time that ultimately the rate payer is not putting themselves on the line in Texas. It’s the private investor that goes out and wants to build project. And if it doesn’t work out, it’s on them. It’s not on the rate payer ultimately. But what is on the rate payer is the transmission system. So that was a great transition there. So I wanted to ask you about all this load growth that’s happening and dominating the conversations in Texas.

I don’t think anyone knows how much of it will materialize. If you do let us know what the number is, but I think no one really has that exact number. But what are the kind of challenges and opportunities around building out this transmission infrastructure, which takes time, right? And that is on the rate payer because that’s the piece of our system that is still very much regulated by the public utility commission. like, can you talk us through.

how you can build out that transmission system efficiently and allocate the costs in a fair way.

Katie Coleman (28:27.95)

Well, so just to tie this topic into the last one, there’s so much uncertainty about these load forecasts and the demand that we’re going to see and what level of infrastructure we need to build to serve that demand in the space that’s still regulated. Okay. In the generation side, we’re allowing private capital providers to make those assessments about what they believe is real and build plants at their own risk. And can you imagine if we were dealing with this problem?

both on the transmission side on building generation plants, which in the regulated areas of the country, they’re having to deal with both. And it’s again, an area where I think a market is well suited to rationalize this behavior. And so I think the competitive generation market is gonna be an advantage for Texas as we move forward more than it even has been to date. But on the transmission side, yes, the biggest difference in what we’re seeing now

And what we saw before in terms of load growth is because of the money involved in developing an AI data center and the value of actually getting an interconnection in again, the race to market for AI companies, you’re seeing a lot of third party developers in this space that are out developing sites and they’re not going to be the customer at the end of the day. They’re trying to get powered land.

or get a site constructed and then have one of the computing company, one hyperscalers or whatever type of computing it is, but typically it’s the AI hyperscalers right now. They would then come into the site and operate there, but they’re not often the ones that are interacting with the utility. Now, some of them do self-build, but even those are often also looking at sites that are being developed by a project developer.

So the question of what is real becomes really esoteric because there’s all these steps that have to happen after a developer gets an interconnection. They’ve got to develop the site in other ways aside from electricity. Different applications need access to fiber or robust communications networks. You need gas supply. There’s all other types of things that have to happen at a site. And so you don’t have, like we used to have, a customer like

Katie Coleman (30:53.622)

a refinery or a semiconductor fab, I’m a chemical company, you don’t have that entity interacting with the utility in this sector. It’s these third party developers. And it’s this race to get powered land that I think is causing these huge numbers that nobody knows what to do with, because it’s just a new type of project development that we’re seeing at a much different scale than we ever have before.

I think ultimately we’re going to get experience with what are the indicators that really should tell you that a site is going to make. But we just don’t have that yet. It’s a new industry. new data centers are not new, but this AI application and the size and the type of development is new. And again, the presence of third parties who are developing these sites, it’s not been at this scale before. So I think that is causing these huge numbers.

Senate Bill 6 was an important step in Texas toward trying to rationalize some of these load numbers. Before, when you were dealing with the direct consumer, there was not a lot of financial commitment required in order to get a utility to study you and to sign an interconnect. Really, when you sign an interconnection agreement, there was a decent amount of security, but to get studied and to get reflected in our cuts planning models was not a big.

financial commitment until you got to the point where the utility was offering you an interconnection and you posted security for that interconnection. So that’s changing. That was probably the main thing. Senate Bill 6 changed is to require proof of financial wherewithal earlier in the process. So we’re not just getting a ton of speculation. But I think what nobody realized when we were doing SB 6 is that solves part of the problem.

That’s all sort of unsophisticated speculators who just have a piece of property with a transmission line across it they don’t really know anything else about interconnections or developing a data center. But for the companies that do actually know that they’re very cost insensitive. And we’ve seen an appetite to put up big application fees, big security. And so it has not kind of culled these numbers in the way that people expect it. And in fact,

Katie Coleman (33:14.478)

what my industrial manufacturing clients would tell you is that it’s gotten to a point where the pay to play proposals are threatening to kind of push them out of the market. So right now there’s a rule pending at the Public Utility Commission where in order to get studied and get an allocation of capacity to interconnect, you would have to post $100,000 per megawatt non-refundable security fee.

If you’re talking about one huge hyperscaler company developing a data center or a couple data centers, maybe that makes sense. I don’t really know. But when you’re talking about oil and gas and midstream companies that are developing multiple sites a year that are over 75 megawatts, and they might get a lead time on interconnection that’s three or four years. And so you’re having them post tens of millions of dollars of credit each year.

that the utility has been holding until they energize, it just gets to be kind of silly. And it’s not something that other jurisdictions do. And so I think you’re going to see possibly two types of behavior from the traditional manufacturing sector. They’re going to try to get under that 75 megawatt threshold if they can. And they’re going to look elsewhere. And again, this rule hasn’t been adopted. It’s still under consideration. But I think we’re at a point right now where we’re having to

grapple with, do we need to treat this new type of development differently from kind of the traditional industrial manufacturing development? It’s something that my clients have struggled with because we fundamentally don’t want to discriminate based on what people are doing with the power. So we really have not wanted a different set of rules because these people are doing AI and we’re doing traditional manufacturing processes. That’s been something that we’ve not.

pushed for. But I think what you’re starting to see is other potential sources of demarcations like size, like a traditional manufacturing site. There are exceptions, but a lot of them are 200, 250 megawatts or less. They’re not a gig. They’re not two gigs. And it’s really that type of behavior that’s causing, you know, a lot of the major transmission needs and things like that, as opposed to what we’ve seen again for 30 years, 50 years in Texas with the industrial sector. So

Katie Coleman (35:41.986)

I think it’s going to be a tricky needle to thread how you put appropriate financial incentives for this new type of development without really harming the traditional business sector that’s been a key part of the economic story in Texas. I think everybody’s struggling with the right answer to that.

Matt Boms (35:59.862)

Yeah, I think that’s reasonable. And you don’t want to pit certain industries against each other. And you definitely don’t want to become a state that relies just on data centers and not on any other industry. Right. So there are huge questions, I think, happening at the highest levels of our state right now. And it’ll be interesting to see how this shakes out over the next few years, because like you said, this is kind of unprecedented, right? At least in our lifetimes, like we haven’t seen this kind of load growth before. So I think it just raises new questions that we haven’t needed to ask for a very long time about.

Who gets interconnected? How much do they need to pay? Because I think probably the thing that most people don’t want to admit at this point is like, we just don’t have enough generation to meet all of this load. It’s going to take time to build it. I mean, we could definitely build enough generation, but it’s going to take some time for the transmission system to catch up to that. The infrastructure is just not there yet.

Katie Coleman (36:46.968)

Well, let me mention one thing on that, which is, you know, a lot of the data center developers and the hyperscalers themselves are interested in supporting generation development. And they are not as cost sensitive in many instances, like I said, the traditional manufacturing community. So they’re interested in bringing generation, especially if it means that they can get interconnected faster.

But there’s not right now a formal way in the planning process to give a customer credit for that generation when they’re interconnecting. The way it’s studied is, well, what if the generation’s not there? We have to plan to serve the full load or what if the load’s not there? We have to plan for all the generation to export and show up on the grid. That’s something that I think the commission has recently given really strong direction to try to come up with a way that you get credit if you’re bringing generation and ERCOT’s working on that.

But I think that’s going to be a key part of the solution going forward is if I’m building a gigawatt load and I don’t get it to interconnect any faster, if I bring my own generation, it really diminishes the incentive to do that. So I think fixing that is going to be a key part of the solution. Cause I do think people want to build stuff, not just the companies themselves for self use, but the traditional dispatchable generators in Texas. think they want to build things too.

But figuring out exactly what the load looks like and, you know, if you can get credit for having this relationship with a large customer, I think those two things would go a long way toward making that happen.

Matt Boms (38:22.85)

Yeah, the system has changed so much, right, that it’s not simple anymore as the utility brings you the poles and wires and delivers the electrons, right? Like now you’ve got these large customers bringing their own generation. That’s a huge game changer. Okay, well, as we wrap this up, moving forward, what is your vision for the Texas grid? If we could snap our fingers and just travel 10 years into the future, like what is the best case scenario here of how this all shakes out?

Katie Coleman (38:49.368)

I really am hopeful that we’ve been through a period of really rapid change and dramatic change since Winter Storm URI. And I feel like we were just kind of coming out of all of that, reassessing market design, making a lot of changes. And there was hope that this last legislative session, it was going to be a quieter session on the electricity front. And then, of course, we got these data center numbers.

And so we had a very active session on electricity again last session and now there’s ongoing rulemaking. So there’s just been a ton of turn. What I’m really hoping for, and I hear this echoed from people at the legislature and at the commission, is a period of more stability where we get these impending problems addressed and then we let things ride, let the market digest it, let people react to it.

Because I think you’re seeing right now, I mean, I every day get questions from clients trying to understand the batching process that’s going on. Just understanding what it looks like to try to get an interconnection here. There’ve been major structural changes to rates recently, and they’re considering additional structural changes to transmission rates that people are still trying to understand. Wholesale pricing, has there been significant changes in that regard?

It’s really hard to get investment of any kind in an environment that’s changing that rapidly. And so I really think the key to the long-term success of the Texas market is again, to rely on market forces as much as you possibly can and to create stability and predictability. I think that’s gonna be the key to long-term success of the market.

Matt Boms (40:32.908)

Yeah, totally. Like the companies that I talk to also are, they’re all saying the same thing. It’s just show us where the goal posts are and just keep them there for a while and that’ll help. Well, Katie, thank you so much. know you’re extremely busy and I just really appreciate the time that you took out of your day to talk with me and just share your expertise. You’re such a brilliant person and so well respected in our industry. So it means a lot that you came on to spend some time with us today. So thank you so much.

Katie Coleman (40:57.848)

Glad to do it. Thanks for the invitation.

Matt Boms (41:02.008)

Thanks for listening to the Energy Capital Podcast. If today’s conversation helped you make sense of the energy world, share the episode with a friend and hit follow on your podcast app. You can find us on Apple podcasts, Spotify, and all the usual platforms. For deeper analysis each week, subscribe to the Texas Energy Empowered newsletter at texasenergyempowered.com. That’s where you’ll find every episode, every article, and all of our latest updates. We’re also on LinkedIn.

X and YouTube, where we post clips, insights and ongoing commentary. Big thanks to Nate Peavey, our producer. I’m Matt Bombs and I’ll see you next time. Stay curious, stay engaged and let’s keep building a stronger, smarter energy future.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.texasenergyandpower.com/subscribe