Texas has 231 GW of battery storage in its interconnection queue. 15.8 percent shows both public commitment fields used in this screen. Here is how counties rank before and after that filter.
Raw queue nameplate and the subset showing public commitment signals answer different questions. The filing supports a first-pass diligence screen; it does not establish deliverable supply.
We use financial security plus notice to proceed as a stronger public-record commitment signal. The gap between signed capacity and the 36.6 GW showing both fields is a diligence question, not proof that the remainder will fail.
| # | 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 |
Mitchell County ranks third in Texas by queued capacity at 6.1 GW and has no project showing both screen signals. Wise County ranks seventh at 4.0 GW, also with none. A screen based only on headline queue data would rank both highly; the commitment fields identify a material diligence gap.
The largest single cohort in the queue claims a 2028 commercial operation date: 88.3 GW across 462 projects. The public filing shows that 86 percent does not yet display both commitment signals used in our screen. That is a reason for deeper diligence, not a forecast of available power.
The 2029 cohort is 3 percent screened under this method. The raw queue should not be treated as a supply forecast.
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.