The Permian storage queue after the commitment filter

Treating the Permian as one power market is the most common error in siting analysis here. On committed capacity the Delaware side runs at roughly a third of the Midland side, and the Delaware is where most of the gas-adjacent campus announcements have landed.

That is the full set of positive-capacity records showing both commitment signals in this regional screen. Two projects in Borden County account for roughly a third of the screened capacity. Nine of the sixteen counties contain no project showing both signals.

The Permian screen decays faster than the state as a whole. Projects claiming a 2029 commercial operation date are 1 percent screened under this method. The 2028 cohort, the largest by capacity, is 8 percent screened.

This pattern warrants additional diligence; the filing alone does not indicate whether power is available to serve a load.

This is a statement about grid-connected battery storage and co-located solar, wind and thermal. It is not a statement about all power in the Permian, and it would be wrong to read it that way.

The basin has substantial existing generation, and much of the data center development being announced here is explicitly planned around behind-the-meter gas, which does not appear in an interconnection queue at all. For a campus built on its own generation, most of this analysis is context rather than constraint.

Where it bites is any plan that assumes nearby grid-connected storage will firm a site on a 2028 or 2029 timeline. On current filings that assumption is supported by 3.3 GW across seventeen projects in an area holding 26.6 GW of stated intent.