FPFirm Power Research

Sample · ERCOT Project Claim Check

Same nameplate.
Same substation.
Different evidence.

Decision question

Can an evaluator treat the 1,000 MW Lyra solar-plus-storage pair at Muleshoe as equally advanced?

Public-record answer: No.

Executive read

The filing supports different diligence conclusions for the two records.

Both records are 500 MW, list Borden County, and connect at the 345 kV Muleshoe point of interconnection. Both show signed interconnection-agreement dates. Only the solar record displays the combined financial-security and notice-to-proceed signal in the July 2026 filing.

What this changes

A model, memo, or seller statement that treats the pair as one uniformly advanced 1,000 MW complex is not supported by this filing.

Record 27INR0434

Screen signal present

Lyra Solar

Filed entity
Juno Solar 4
Nameplate
500 MW
County
Borden
Point of interconnection
345 kV Muleshoe (#59922)
Interconnection agreement
July 1, 2025
FS + NTP field
Yes
Claimed COD
September 15, 2027

Record 26INR0636

Screen signal absent

Lyra Storage

Filed entity
Juno BESS I
Nameplate
500 MW
County
Borden
Point of interconnection
345 kV Muleshoe (#59922)
Interconnection agreement
August 13, 2025
FS + NTP field
No
Claimed COD
November 12, 2026

Claim test

Confirmed, contradicted, and still unknown.

Confirmed

Two separate 500 MW records

The filing lists distinct INR numbers and filed entities. Both records name Muleshoe 345 kV as the point of interconnection.

Not supported

Equal advancement

The records do not carry the same public commitment signal. The storage record claims an earlier COD while its combined FS + NTP field remains “No.”

Unknown

Common control and build plan

Names and POI suggest a relationship, but this filing does not establish parent ownership, financing, construction status, or whether the records share a coordinated build plan.

Next diligence

Five questions before relying on the 1,000 MW claim.

  1. Who controls Juno Solar 4 and Juno BESS I?
  2. Does the storage record have an updated financial-security or NTP status after the July filing?
  3. Are the solar and storage records commercially or contractually linked?
  4. What transmission-study assumptions apply at Muleshoe?
  5. What evidence supports the storage record’s earlier claimed COD?

Source and boundary

Source: ERCOT GIS Report, July 2026, parsed August 27, 2026. Values above reproduce the public filing fields used by Firm Power Research.

Boundary: This sample tests what one public filing supports. It is not engineering, legal, investment, ownership, construction, deliverability, congestion, or completion-probability analysis. “FS + NTP” reproduces a combined source field; it does not reveal which component may be absent when the value is “No.”

Download the two-row source excerpt ↓

Apply this to your decision

Send one project, portfolio, or claim.

We will show what the ERCOT filing confirms, what it contradicts, and which questions should move into deeper diligence.

Request a Project Claim Check