Firm Power Research
ERCOT · Q3 2026 · Storage queue

Six of every seven queued megawatts are not real

Texas has 231 GW of battery storage in its interconnection queue. Only 15.8 percent has posted financial security. Here is which counties survive the filter, and which collapse.

In the queue230.9 GW1,187 planned projects across every ERCOT zone.
Posted financial security36.6 GW213 projects. The only capacity backed by committed money.
Queue positions only194.3 GW974 projects holding a place in line with nothing at risk.

Headline queue capacity overstates deliverable supply by roughly six times. Any siting decision, load forecast or acquisition model built on the raw queue number is built on a number the operator never intended to be read that way.

The reality funnel

share of queued megawatts surviving each milestone
In the queue
230.9 GW100.0%
Interconnection agreement signed
59.4 GW25.7%
Financial security posted, notice to proceed
36.6 GW15.8%
Approved for energization
5.0 GW2.2%
Approved for synchronization
4.4 GW1.9%

The interconnection agreement is a scheduling document. Financial security plus notice to proceed is the first point where a developer has money at risk and a contractual obligation to build. The gap between those two lines, 59.4 GW signed against 36.6 GW funded, is the width of the industry's optimism.

County rankings invert under the filter

top 16 by queued capacity, re-ranked by funded capacity
queued capacity funded capacity rank move shown against funded-capacity rank
#County Queued vs funded Queued GW Funded GW Real Proj (funded) Rank move
1 Brazoria 7.4 2.4 33% 45 (11) holds
2 Harris 6.3 0.5 8% 28 (4) ↓7
3 Mitchell 6.1 0.0 0% 12 (0) ↓12
4 Bexar 5.0 0.5 11% 20 (4) ↓4
5 Jack 4.9 0.8 16% 13 (3) ↓1
6 Ellis 4.4 0.2 5% 17 (1) ↓7
7 Wise 4.0 0.0 0% 10 (0) ↓9
8 Robertson 3.9 0.6 16% 20 (3) holds
9 Wharton 3.8 1.0 25% 23 (5) holds
10 Milam 3.8 0.4 11% 18 (3) ↓1
11 San Patricio 3.7 0.5 13% 19 (3) holds
12 Cameron 3.5 0.9 24% 23 (7) holds
13 Reeves 3.4 0.2 7% 9 (1) holds
14 Scurry 3.4 0.0 0% 13 (1) holds
15 Matagorda 3.2 1.3 41% 19 (7) holds
16 Borden 3.2 1.0 31% 11 (2) holds

The finding that changes a siting decision

Mitchell County ranks third in Texas by queued capacity at 6.1 GW and has zero funded projects. Wise County ranks seventh at 4.0 GW, also zero. A site selection screen run on headline queue data puts both in the national top ten. Neither has a single megawatt with money behind it.

Commercial operation dates decay with distance

claimed capacity by year, share funded
COD 202657%
6.5 of 11.5 GW funded
COD 202727%
14.8 of 54.1 GW funded
COD 202814%
12.6 of 88.3 GW funded
COD 20293%
2.0 of 65.3 GW funded

The largest single cohort in the queue claims a 2028 commercial operation date: 88.3 GW across 462 projects. Twelve and a half of those gigawatts are funded. A load that needs firm power in 2028 is planning against a cohort that is 86 percent unfunded today, and interconnection studies alone will consume much of the intervening time.

The 2029 cohort is 3 percent funded. It should be treated as an expression of interest, not a supply forecast.

What this does not tell you

the demand side is deliberately opaque

Generation and storage interconnection is a public filing. Large load interconnection is not, in any comparable form. ERCOT created a separate process for loads of 75 MW and above, Batch Zero under PGRR145, and publishes the forms and eligibility rules rather than a roster of who is in it.

That asymmetry is the central problem for anyone siting a large load in Texas. You can see, in detail, every megawatt of supply that intends to arrive and exactly how much of it is real. You cannot see, from public filings, who else is queued for the same substation capacity. Estimating the demand side requires triangulation from utility filings, county tax abatement records, water district permits and transmission service provider planning documents.

Method and limitations