Why some large loads insist on paying their way

The episode centers on TEBA’s push to reshape how Texas connects and charges the next wave of very large electricity customers. Host Matt Boms interviews Bryn Baker, senior director for organized markets policy at the Corporate Energy Buyers Association and leader of the Texas Energy Buyers Alliance, about the policy, technical and market trade-offs that will determine whether data centers, advanced manufacturing, and other gigawatt-scale loads help pay for — or shift costs onto — existing ratepayers. Baker frames the scale: TEBA members include some of the world’s largest corporate buyers (about one-fifth of the Fortune 500 and roughly $36 trillion market cap), and ERCOT faces a potential influx of roughly 110 GW of new large loads over five years versus today’s ~86 GW peak.

The conversation follows three linked threads. First, the batch interconnection process (batch zero) and its qualification rules: ERCOT told its board (June 2, 2026) it expects ~35 GW of firm loads and ~65 GW of studied/allocated loads to be in play, but Baker describes a ‘chicken-and-egg’ problem — developers need interconnection study results to finance projects, while ERCOT needs committed projects to plan transmission; she said stakeholders expect to know who qualifies by August 7. Second, transmission and cost allocation: Baker argues for a major backbone upgrade (including 765 kV lines) to create multi-value capacity and cautions that $37 billion of transmission investment is already priced into plans, raising costs about 3.5%/year; TEBA proposed minimum demand charges for >75 MW customers, and Baker cites initial results that an ~85% contracted-demand minimum would leave other customers rate-neutral. Third, the newly approved Energy Attribute Certificate program (ERCOT board approval June 2, 2026): Baker explains the EAC as an hourly, technology-neutral tracking instrument that can monetize and validate nuclear, storage, low‑carbon gas and other attributes, enable new secondary markets, and support demand-side flexibility (e.g., data centers contracting distributed resilience services).

Baker and Boms agree the state has avoided paralysis by moving quickly but acknowledge unresolved details: batch qualification criteria, how transmission will be planned and paid for (4CP vs. 12CP debates), and the risk that some loads will go behind-the-meter if grid interconnection proves too costly or uncertain. Baker is cautiously optimistic: the institutional building blocks exist, but execution — integrated transmission planning, clear rules for minimum charges, and a functioning EAC system administered by a third party (RFP this fall, vendor approval targeted by December) — will decide whether load growth reduces or redistributes costs and whether Texas sustains its competitive energy market.