Outside ERCOT, §25.194 isn't the deal. Utility tariffs are.

The Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) adopted 16 TAC §25.194, its large-load financial-security rule. That rule and the Batch study frame cover the ERCOT interconnection path. They do not set the retail large-load electric service agreement (ESA) for a campus in Southwestern Public Service (SPS), Southwestern Electric Power (SWEPCO), or El Paso Electric (EPE) territory. Those three utilities each have large-load packages pending at the PUCT. Before you underwrite a Panhandle, South Plains, East Texas, or El Paso campus against the ERCOT stack, read the utility-specific terms and the SPS November 9, 2026 intervention clock.

A non-ERCOT Texas campus underwrites a utility-specific large-load package that already diverges across SPS, SWEPCO, and El Paso Electric, not the ERCOT §25.194 and Batch stack. §25.194 security applies only on the ERCOT path (PUCT adopted 16 TAC 25.194 financial security).

Three utilities, three packages

SPS filed Docket No. 60332 on September 25, 2026. It asks the Commission to revise its Large General Service - Transmission (LGS-T) tariff for large-load commercial terms. The application text proposes an effective date of October 30, 2026. That date is application text. It is not restated in Order No. 3's procedural schedule table.

SWEPCO Docket No. 58796 is a different instrument. The parties filed a Unanimous Stipulation and Settlement Agreement on September 15, 2026, revising a standard-form Contract for Electric Service - Large Load (ES-LL Contract). SOAH Order No. 12, signed October 5, 2026, admitted the evidence, remanded the case to the Commission, and dismissed it from SOAH's docket. Remand is not a final Commission order approving the ES-LL Contract.

El Paso Electric filed Docket No. 59611 on April 7, 2026, for approval of Schedule No. 27 - High Load Factor Large Power Service Rate (HLFLP). The City of El Paso filed direct testimony on October 9, 2026. The application remains pending. Schedule 27 is proposed, not approved.

The record so far shows who filed, who intervened, who recommended, and who ordered:

• SPS filed the LGS-T revision application.
• Commission Staff recommended that the SPS application be found administratively complete and the proposed notice sufficient, and recommended SPS's proposed procedural schedule.
• Texas Industrial Energy Consumers (TIEC) moved to intervene in Docket 60332. Order No. 2 grants that intervention.
• The ALJ entered Order No. 3 finding the SPS application sufficient for further review and the proposed notice sufficient, and entered the procedural schedule.
• The SWEPCO Signatories (Staff, SWEPCO, TIEC, OPUC, CARD, and Eastman) stipulated the ES-LL revisions. SOAH remanded to the Commission.
• EPE filed the Schedule 27 application.

SPS Docket 60332: proposed LGS-T commercial terms

Attachment A to SPS's application states the commercial terms for Aggregated Service of greater than or equal to 75 MW of Peak Contracted Load. Peak Contracted Load is the maximum aggregated on-peak load committed in one or more Electric Service Agreements (ESAs) within a 2.5-mile radius. Peak Contracted Load Growth is any increase of 75 MW or more in Aggregated Existing Contracted Load after September 25, 2026.

The proposed commercial terms include:

• ESA: a customer, whether new or existing, must enter into an ESA for Peak Contracted Load and/or Peak Contracted Load Growth. Service is contingent on ESA execution and required security.
• Term: minimum initial term of 15 years of service at full Peak Contracted Load. A Load Ramp Period, if elected, would be added to the initial term. Existing contracted load may receive up to 10 years of credit for previous continuous service, reducing the required ESA term.
• Minimum Bill: Demand Charges times billed kW demand, based on the greater of (i) actual metered kW demand or (ii) 80% of Peak Contracted Load. Demand Charges include demand charges in the rate schedule plus applicable demand-based adjustments or riders.
• Transmission Infrastructure Application Fee: non-refundable application fee of $120,000. Additional study fees for previously unstudied load are consistent with the Southwest Power Pool tariff.
• Exit Fee: if an ESA is terminated before completion of the Initial or Renewal Term for anything other than an uncured and unexcused Company default, the customer must pay Minimum Bill payments. The payment period is the lesser of (i) fifteen years or (ii) the remaining Initial or Renewal Term. The fifteen-year calculation includes the required 24-month termination notice period under Auto-Renewal and thirteen years of Minimum Bill payments following termination.
• Security: two required forms, subject to Company discretion. First, an irrevocable Letter of Credit of no less than three months' Minimum Bills based on the customer's highest Peak Contracted Load in the ESA. Second, a Guaranty of no less than five years of Minimum Bill payments and no more than the Exit Fee required at ESA execution. If the customer is not creditworthy and proposes no creditworthy Guarantor, the customer must post a Letter of Credit in lieu of the Guaranty.

These terms are proposed in SPS's application. They are not an approved tariff revision.

SPS procedural clock (Order No. 3)

Order No. 3, filed October 12, 2026, finds the application sufficient for further review and the proposed notice sufficient. It enters this schedule:

• Deadline for intervention, intervenor comments, and hearing requests: November 9, 2026
• Deadline for parties to file a proposed list of issues: November 16, 2026
• Deadline for the applicant to file proof of notice as proposed: November 16, 2026
• Deadline for Commission Staff to recommend on notice and propose a procedural schedule for further processing: November 23, 2026

The footnote in Order No. 3 states that under 16 TAC §22.104(b), the intervention deadline is forty-five days from the September 25, 2026 filing date unless otherwise provided, and that forty-five days falls on November 9, 2026. Staff's November 23 filing will address further processing. Do not treat the application's October 30, 2026 proposed effective date as the adopted schedule.

SWEPCO Docket 58796: stipulated ES-LL Contract on remand

The Unanimous Stipulation revises the ES-LL Contract applicability to Computational load of greater than or equal to 75 MW for a single Computational load facility, or for multiple Computational loads in aggregate that should be considered a single facility. "Computational load" means load that primarily consists of power-electronic-based load, such as data centers and cryptocurrency mining facilities. SWEPCO may exercise reasonable discretion on whether multiple loads count as a single facility, using factors such as common ultimate control, multi-building campus development, and interconnection points. The Signatories treat that applicability language as a compromise for this proceeding and reserve rights on future applicability filings.

Attachment A to the Unanimous Stipulation (Item 103) is the stipulated revised ES-LL Contract text. Other stipulated revisions include:

• Ramp Period: from the Beginning Date of Step 1 in Schedule 1 until the day prior to the Beginning Date of the last populated Step, not to exceed five years.
• Initial Contract Term: from contract execution until eighteen years from the inception of the Ramp Period.
• Minimum Billing Demand (during the Billing Period): the greater of Billing Demand under the LLP rate schedule's determination provision or 90% of the Contract Capacity stated in Schedule 1. Outside the Billing Period, Minimum Billing Demand is 0 MW.
• Minimum Billing Energy (during the Billing Period): the LLP kWh charge multiplied by the greater of actual kWh or Contract Capacity times 70% times billing hours in the month. Outside the Billing Period, Minimum Billing Energy is 0 kWh.
• Termination Fee: the fee is due if the customer terminates before the end of the Initial or Renewal Term, or fails to comply with material terms including payment for three months. The customer owes and must pay within 90 days an amount equal to the future minimum payments due for the remaining portions of the Ramp Period, Full Operations Period, and the five-year notice period described in Automatic Renewal. Company and Customer may mutually agree otherwise.
• Automatic Renewal: after the Initial Contract Term, annual renewal until either party gives at least five years' notice before the end of the Contract Term or Renewal Term.
• Collateral Required: within a blank number of days of executing the contract, customer shall provide collateral in a form acceptable to Company based upon the creditworthiness of Customer. Upon execution, the amount equals 24 times Customer's previous maximum monthly non-fuel bill based on Customer's last Step in Schedule 1. During the full operations period, the amount is recomputed annually and updated if the recomputed value is 10% greater than the current amount held.

SOAH Order No. 12 remands the case to the Commission. Until the Commission issues a final order, treat the ES-LL text as a stipulated proposal on remand, not an approved tariff.

El Paso Electric Docket 59611: proposed Schedule 27

Proposed Schedule No. 27 - HLFLP is available to customers with maximum Contracted Demand equal to or exceeding 75,000 kW and an expected annual Load Factor of or exceeding 85%. Service is at a transmission voltage of not less than 115,000 volts. An Energy Service Agreement is required. The Load Ramp Period must not exceed four years, or such period as the Company allows.

Billing Demand is the highest of:

• 75,000 kW
• The Maximum Demand (highest measured thirty-minute interval kW in the billing month), adjusted by Meter Voltage Adjustment if applicable
• 85% of the monthly contract demand
• The highest Monthly Billing Demand previously established during the past thirty-six months

The Monthly Minimum Charge is the Customer Charge plus applicable Demand Charge plus other non-consumption fixed riders, Facilities Charges, and Tax Adjustment. Unless otherwise agreed, billing under the tariff begins once the utility commences service consistent with the ESA, whether or not the customer has energized its facilities.

Contract terms in Schedule 27 include:

• Initial Term Minimum: twenty-year minimum initial term, with automatic annual renewal after the Initial Term unless adequate notice is given. The Load Ramp Period is included in the Initial Term.
• Security: not required if the customer has at least two of three ratings (S&P Issuer Credit Rating at least A-, Moody's Issuer Rating at least A3, Fitch Long-Term Issuer Default Rating at least A-). If required, forms may include cash or cash equivalents, an irrevocable standby letter of credit, or an irrevocable and unconditional parental or affiliate guarantee meeting stated rating tests (or EPE approval in its reasonable discretion). The Initial Security Amount reflects incremental investment exposure and is subject to annual adjustment.
• Damages on early termination after Service commences but before completion of the Initial Term: Monthly Minimum Charge times the number of months remaining until the end of the Initial Term.

Schedule 27 rates in the application incorporate rates previously approved in Schedule 33A. The tariff sheet in the application shows an effective date for electricity consumed on and after January 1, 2027. That is proposed sheet language inside a pending application, not a Commission approval of Schedule 27.

What changes in underwriting versus an ERCOT campus

An ERCOT-path campus underwrites interconnection security and Batch / CTP study outcomes under the ERCOT and PUCT §25.194 frame. A non-ERCOT campus in these territories underwrites a retail ESA and tariff package whose term, minimum bill, exit or termination fee, and security sit in the utility's PUCT filing.

The three packages already diverge on several underwriting inputs:

Do not import PUCT §25.194 posting mechanics into these models. Confirm the utility territory, the live docket status, and the signed ESA text before any CapEx or tenant model treats the numbers above as locked.

Before the next commitment

Whether to intervene in Docket 60332, which proposed or stipulated terms to accept in an ESA, and how to structure security are the sponsor's calls, made with counsel. The steps below gather the facts for those calls. None of this is legal advice.

1. Confirm the campus is in SPS, SWEPCO, or EPE Texas retail territory, and that the load class matches the filing's threshold language (Peak Contracted Load, Computational load, or Contracted Demand plus load factor).
2. Calendar the SPS Docket 60332 dates from Order No. 3: November 9, 2026 for intervention / intervenor comments / hearing requests; November 16 for issues list and proof of notice; November 23 for Staff's recommendation on notice and further schedule.
3. Pull the latest Interchange items in 60332, 58796, and 59611 before treating any proposed effective date or sheet effective date as adopted.
4. Build a side-by-side of term, minimum bill or billing demand, exit or termination fee, and security forms using only the saved primary text for the utility that serves the site.
5. List every CapEx, tenant, and financing assumption that still copies PUCT §25.194 or Batch study outcomes into a non-ERCOT ESA model, and mark each for rewrite against the utility package.
6. Decide with counsel whether to seek intervention or comments in Docket 60332 before the November 9, 2026 deadline, and what issues list to propose by November 16 if intervening.