Unverifiable now costs the same as false. Every claim below carries its primary source, retrieval date, and verification method. What was not verified is listed as its own section.
Revision note, October 26, 2026. This provenance record and its signature describe the original October article. The current editorial revision changes its title and explanatory wording. The historical signature does not authenticate the revised article. Its source references remain available below.
Stated by Pallara, not inferred by a classifier. A binary authorship label reports one bit. This reports the work.
Stage
Performed by
Detail
Source discovery
Machine, Claude
Adoption order fetched on the founder Mac from interchange.puc.texas.gov, the docket listing for Item 218 read in a browser. Prior verified facts read from kernel/obligations.yaml (parameters.adopted_25_194). Coverage search by web search and direct fetch.
Primary-source verification
Machine, Claude
Every rule-text claim read from pdftotext extraction of the order PDFs and matched to its printed page number. No figure entered the draft from model recall.
Drafting
Machine, Claude
Prose drafted by a language model. Any AI-assistance label a platform applies to this text is correct.
Figures
Machine, Claude
Rendered from skills/pallara-press/references/figures/02-unverifiable.figures.json. Figure 4 is illustrative arithmetic computed by Pallara, labelled as such.
Publication decision and responsibility
Preston Jones
Pallara, Inc. is responsible for every claim published here regardless of which stage was machine performed.
Verified against a primary source (16)
§25.194(j)(2): information that is false, inaccurate, or cannot be verified through supporting documentation may lead to forfeiture of security posted under the rule or Planning Guide Section 9, and reallocation of capacity.verified
Rule text read at order p. 268. Quoted phrase verbatim.
§25.194(h)(2): all information provided or attested to under Planning Guide Section 9 is subject to audit and verification; failure to produce supporting documentation may lead to enforcement including loss of allocated capacity.verified
Recorded in kernel/obligations.yaml adopted_25_194.texas_register, hash-matched; Item 218 docket listing re-read in browser 2026-10-10.
ERCOT defines an attestation as the developer's legal declaration that it satisfies the requirement; schedules further RFIs and cure opportunities for October to November 2026, the eligibility verification report for December 10, and an open meeting December 17.verified
PDF downloaded and read; definition on slide 11 legend, schedule on slide 10.
24-month non-utilization: notice to ERCOT within 30 days; within 60 days draw security, apply to amounts owed, subtract 20% of security associated with non-utilized capacity, return the balance.verified
Order preamble at p. 212 describes the return of the balance after amounts owed without the 20% subtraction; the March proposal refunded 20% of the balance with 80% offsetting TSP rate base.verified
Both pages fetched; wording matched to the preamble. White & Case URL https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/puct-sets-financial-commitments-data-center-interconnection-governor-pauses-permit
SLLIA security includes a $50,000 per MW of contracted peak demand leg; the $10,000, $40,000 and $50,000 per-MW returns are computed by Pallara assuming zero amounts owed.verified
§25.194(f)(2)(B) at order p. 251. Arithmetic computed, not quoted.
The Commission adopted Targa's recommendation to eliminate submission of underlying plans, studies, or permit applications, required disclosure supported by an officer attestation, and stated ERCOT or Commission staff may request the underlying documents to verify.verified
The Commission declined Constellation's written-confirmation proposal because written confirmation alone does not provide sufficient assurance.verified
ERCOT may request information, including competitively sensitive information, at any point in the interconnection process; adopted §25.194(j) added for this.verified
Slide 12 lists the evidence submitted with each Batch Zero eligibility package: eleven requirements carry an entry (site verification is N/A), and seven of those entries are 'Attestation': long-lead equipment, notice to proceed, end-use customer confirmation, site approvals, binding GC contract, binding substation contractor contract, affiliate form. The same slide lists the additional documents ERCOT may request for each.verified
PDF downloaded, slide 12 rendered to PNG and read visually; rows counted, not quoted as a total.
Slide 11 legend defines A = Attestation as the developer's legal declaration that it satisfies the requirement; requirements unique to path (e) are long-lead equipment, notice to proceed, end-use customer confirmation, and unique to path (f) are site approvals, binding GC contract, binding substation contractor contract, all coded A.verified
Recorded in kernel/obligations.yaml batch_zero classification block (issuance_terms), re-baselined 2026-09-27.
Limits of this record
The 270-page order was searched for audit, attestation and documentation terms and the matching Commission responses read (pp. 3-6, 40, 50, 81-82, 87-93, 160-161, 211-213). It was not read end to end.
Novelty scoped to five published pieces (Utility Dive, White & Case, Colocation Scout, Pillsbury, Global Data Center Hub) and web searches on 2026-10-10.
Every consequence in (j)(2) is discretionary. Nothing here predicts how staff will apply it to any project.
Pallara represents no applicant and takes no position on any project. Decision support, not legal advice.