SITEBRAID RESOURCE / TEXAS CAMPUS DELIVERY

Texas Data Center Campus Infrastructure Responsibility Matrix

A practical owner-side matrix for assigning control, funding, approval, construction, operation and acceptance across shared Texas data center campus infrastructure.

A multi-tenant data center campus can have a complete design and still lack a deliverable infrastructure plan when the approval, funding, construction, ownership and acceptance verbs belong to different parties.

Use this downloadable matrix to assign those verbs before commitments collide, then replace each provisional entry with project-specific evidence.

Handbook PDF

Complete operating toolkit: handbook PDF, formula-driven XLSX, editable Word forms, operational CSV registers, worked example, quick start, data dictionary, authority map, update log and license.

Download the handbook PDF

Download the complete toolkit

Version 3.2.0 · Verified locally 2026-09-18. Source-specific verification limits are in the authority map.

The examples are illustrative. Read the quick start and license in the ZIP before using a project copy.

What is inside

Handbook and worked example

Substantive guidance with a labeled 300 MW campus example, authority limits and release gates.

Editable control model

Cost-by-cost reconciliation, cash-to-finish, risk, contingency, retainage, earned-value future draws, all applicable checklist controls and critical-path scheduling.

Operating records

Editable release and exception forms, dated calculated CSV snapshots, input templates and a field dictionary.

Version and source record

Version 3.2.0. Actual verification review: September 18, 2026. 16 TAC 25.194 was adopted September 18, 2026 and took effect October 8, 2026, per the PUCT order adopting 16 TAC 25.194 (Project 58481, Item 218) and the Texas Register adoption notice at 51 TexReg 6875 (October 2, 2026), both listed under Primary sources and scope.

Who should use it

Use it with owner development, finance, legal, engineering, public-infrastructure and campus-operations teams before releasing shared capital or making tenant commitments.

The matrix coordinates decisions. It does not establish site-specific capacity, authority, cost, schedule or legal rights.

If your matrix still has interfaces with no owner, our Campus readiness work closes them before the phase has to be accepted.

Primary sources and scope

ERCOT Large Load Integration
Large-load and energization context.
Texas Water Code, Chapter 13
Water and sewer utility regulation.
TCEQ water districts guidance
Water-district powers and oversight.
TxDOT Access Management Manual
State-highway access context.
PUCT order adopting 16 TAC 25.194 (Project 58481, Item 218)
Order adopting 16 TAC 25.194, filed September 18, 2026.
Texas Register adoption notice at 51 TexReg 6875 (October 2, 2026)
Adopted-rule notice for 16 TAC 25.194, effective October 8, 2026.

This resource distinguishes governing requirements, project-specific determinations and recommended owner controls. It is not legal, tax, accounting, engineering or regulatory advice.

Campus infrastructure responsibility matrix

Starting points only. Replace provisional roles with project-specific authority, funding and acceptance evidence. This is not a site-specific allocation or professional approval.

Read across each system: authority identifies who controls the decision; funding identifies the obligation to resolve; delivery and acceptance identify the evidence needed.

Texas Data Center Campus Infrastructure Responsibility Matrix (reference updated 2026-09-10)
System	Typical control or authority	Likely funding question	Delivery and acceptance record
Electric service and substation	The serving utility, cooperative or municipal system controls its service process. ERCOT requirements can apply through the interconnecting provider for qualifying large loads.	Who funds dedicated and shared electrical works, deposits, security and minimum obligations before each tenant ramps?	Provider-supported service scope and schedule; executed agreements; accepted design and equipment milestones; commissioning and energization records.
On-site generation and microgrid	The owner, generator, operator, provider and applicable regulators divide authority according to the selected configuration. A private location does not remove interconnection, permitting or operating requirements.	Who funds fuel, interconnection, standby service, controls, maintenance and the downside if permanent service arrives early or late?	Approved operating boundary; permits; protection and controls basis; fuel and maintenance contracts; tested transition and emergency procedures.
Water supply, storage and treatment	The certificated provider, municipality, district or other authorized supplier controls the applicable service route. CCN territory alone does not establish physical capacity.	Who pays for source, transmission, storage, treatment and oversizing that later phases or other users may need?	Provider commitment; supported demand and quality basis; funded improvement scope; easements; permits; testing and accepted service date.
Wastewater and discharge	The relevant provider and environmental authorities control service and discharge permissions. Cooling choices determine the quantity and quality case.	Who funds off-site conveyance or treatment upgrades, and who carries cost if tenant water assumptions change?	Accepted discharge basis; provider capacity confirmation; permit path; funded works; connection and operating acceptance.
Drainage and flood-management works	Local development authorities and responsible drainage entities govern the applicable criteria. The owner controls the integrated site response within its rights.	Which works serve the first phase, preserve later phases or provide a wider regional benefit, and how is each portion recovered?	Approved studies and plans; land and easement control; construction acceptance; inspection and long-term maintenance assignment.
Roads, access and emergency response	Cities, counties, TxDOT or other road authorities control affected public routes. Emergency-service providers define response requirements with the campus operator.	Who funds turn lanes, road upgrades, controlled access, facilities, equipment, staffing and recurring service?	Approved access and traffic plan; right-of-way; construction acceptance; emergency operating plan; funded staffing and service commitments.
Fiber routes and campus entries	Carriers control their networks; the owner controls campus corridors and entry arrangements within its property rights. Two commercial providers may still share one physical route.	Who funds diverse laterals, ducts, meet-me facilities and protected corridors for future tenants?	Route evidence; easements and access rights; physical-diversity review; tested service; operating and repair responsibilities.
Shared corridors and utility infrastructure	The owner coordinates land, tenant, provider and operator rights. Individual utilities or districts may own and operate specific assets.	Which party carries early shared capital, how is later use charged and what happens if later tenants never arrive?	Integrated corridor plan; ownership schedule; access and easement record; interface register; accepted phase handoffs and lifecycle responsibilities.
Entitlements and public commitments	The applicable city, county, district and other authorities control their approvals. Have counsel advise on the project-specific route and obligations.	Which infrastructure or community commitments are conditions of approval, sponsor investments or recoverable shared works?	Adopted approvals and agreements; service and mitigation commitments; accountable owners; funding; dates; reporting and closure evidence.
Tenant interfaces and campus operations	The owner and operator coordinate shared systems, while tenant agreements define rights and obligations subject to the actual service structure.	How are reserves, minimum commitments, expansion rights, operating costs and shared-asset repayment allocated between tenants and sponsor?	Reconciled capacity and commitments ledger; interface agreements; change control; operating acceptance; current campus basis after each phase.

Reuse the HTML matrix

You may quote or embed this HTML reference matrix with its scope note, reference date and Sitebraid attribution. Downloadable toolkit licensing remains in the package.

HTML table with scope and attribution: select and copy

<figure><table><caption>Texas Data Center Campus Infrastructure Responsibility Matrix (reference updated 2026-09-10)</caption><thead><tr><th scope="col">System</th><th scope="col">Typical control or authority</th><th scope="col">Likely funding question</th><th scope="col">Delivery and acceptance record</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th scope="row">Electric service and substation</th><td>The serving utility, cooperative or municipal system controls its service process. ERCOT requirements can apply through the interconnecting provider for qualifying large loads.</td><td>Who funds dedicated and shared electrical works, deposits, security and minimum obligations before each tenant ramps?</td><td>Provider-supported service scope and schedule; executed agreements; accepted design and equipment milestones; commissioning and energization records.</td></tr><tr><th scope="row">On-site generation and microgrid</th><td>The owner, generator, operator, provider and applicable regulators divide authority according to the selected configuration. A private location does not remove interconnection, permitting or operating requirements.</td><td>Who funds fuel, interconnection, standby service, controls, maintenance and the downside if permanent service arrives early or late?</td><td>Approved operating boundary; permits; protection and controls basis; fuel and maintenance contracts; tested transition and emergency procedures.</td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Water supply, storage and treatment</th><td>The certificated provider, municipality, district or other authorized supplier controls the applicable service route. CCN territory alone does not establish physical capacity.</td><td>Who pays for source, transmission, storage, treatment and oversizing that later phases or other users may need?</td><td>Provider commitment; supported demand and quality basis; funded improvement scope; easements; permits; testing and accepted service date.</td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Wastewater and discharge</th><td>The relevant provider and environmental authorities control service and discharge permissions. Cooling choices determine the quantity and quality case.</td><td>Who funds off-site conveyance or treatment upgrades, and who carries cost if tenant water assumptions change?</td><td>Accepted discharge basis; provider capacity confirmation; permit path; funded works; connection and operating acceptance.</td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Drainage and flood-management works</th><td>Local development authorities and responsible drainage entities govern the applicable criteria. The owner controls the integrated site response within its rights.</td><td>Which works serve the first phase, preserve later phases or provide a wider regional benefit, and how is each portion recovered?</td><td>Approved studies and plans; land and easement control; construction acceptance; inspection and long-term maintenance assignment.</td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Roads, access and emergency response</th><td>Cities, counties, TxDOT or other road authorities control affected public routes. Emergency-service providers define response requirements with the campus operator.</td><td>Who funds turn lanes, road upgrades, controlled access, facilities, equipment, staffing and recurring service?</td><td>Approved access and traffic plan; right-of-way; construction acceptance; emergency operating plan; funded staffing and service commitments.</td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Fiber routes and campus entries</th><td>Carriers control their networks; the owner controls campus corridors and entry arrangements within its property rights. Two commercial providers may still share one physical route.</td><td>Who funds diverse laterals, ducts, meet-me facilities and protected corridors for future tenants?</td><td>Route evidence; easements and access rights; physical-diversity review; tested service; operating and repair responsibilities.</td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Shared corridors and utility infrastructure</th><td>The owner coordinates land, tenant, provider and operator rights. Individual utilities or districts may own and operate specific assets.</td><td>Which party carries early shared capital, how is later use charged and what happens if later tenants never arrive?</td><td>Integrated corridor plan; ownership schedule; access and easement record; interface register; accepted phase handoffs and lifecycle responsibilities.</td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Entitlements and public commitments</th><td>The applicable city, county, district and other authorities control their approvals. Have counsel advise on the project-specific route and obligations.</td><td>Which infrastructure or community commitments are conditions of approval, sponsor investments or recoverable shared works?</td><td>Adopted approvals and agreements; service and mitigation commitments; accountable owners; funding; dates; reporting and closure evidence.</td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Tenant interfaces and campus operations</th><td>The owner and operator coordinate shared systems, while tenant agreements define rights and obligations subject to the actual service structure.</td><td>How are reserves, minimum commitments, expansion rights, operating costs and shared-asset repayment allocated between tenants and sponsor?</td><td>Reconciled capacity and commitments ledger; interface agreements; change control; operating acceptance; current campus basis after each phase.</td></tr></tbody></table><p>Starting points only. Replace provisional roles with project-specific authority, funding and acceptance evidence. This is not a site-specific allocation or professional approval.</p><figcaption>Source: <a href="https://sitebraid.dev/resources/texas-data-center-campus-infrastructure-responsibility-matrix/">Sitebraid, Texas Data Center Campus Infrastructure Responsibility Matrix</a>. Reference updated 2026-09-10.</figcaption></figure>

Rules for using the matrix

Assign verbs, not labels. For every system, name who specifies, approves, funds, designs, constructs, owns, operates, maintains and accepts. Writing only utility, city or developer hides the handoffs that decide schedule.

Separate territory from service. A boundary or service territory identifies a potential authority or provider. It does not prove capacity, funding, land rights, approvals or a usable delivery date.

Separate ownership from operation. An owner-funded asset may be utility-operated. A district-financed improvement may serve several users. Campus ownership increases control and also creates staffing, compliance, maintenance and replacement duties.

Allocate cost by phase and cause. Distinguish first-phase requirements, shared campus capacity, future options and wider regional benefits. Do not treat speculative later tenants or existing residents as an unexplained backstop.

Define acceptance before release. A completed construction package is not necessarily usable service. Identify the evidence required by the provider, authority, operator and affected tenant before releasing capital.

Update after every commitment. A new tenant date, load, cooling basis or public commitment should update the responsibility matrix before the next contract, procurement release or development representation.

Cite this resource

Title: Texas Data Center Campus Infrastructure Responsibility Matrix
Publisher: Sitebraid
Canonical URL: https://sitebraid.dev/resources/texas-data-center-campus-infrastructure-responsibility-matrix/
Version: 3.2.0
Reviewed: 2026-09-18

Plain citation text: select and copy

Sitebraid. Texas Data Center Campus Infrastructure Responsibility Matrix. Version 3.2.0. Reviewed 2026-09-18. https://sitebraid.dev/resources/texas-data-center-campus-infrastructure-responsibility-matrix/

Author, methodology and update record

Author and publisher: Sitebraid. This owner-side synthesis separates source requirements, project-specific decisions and recommended controls. Use the primary sources below and the toolkit authority map to check applicability and source-specific review limits.

The version and review date above describe the resource record, not a new regulatory review. The toolkit includes the authority map, version update log and license. Citation, reuse and contact tools were added on September 22, 2026; that presentation update does not change the artifact version.

Apply this resource to your project

All core artifacts and editable toolkits are available without registration.

Request a project responsibility workshop

Ask about resource updates through our contact page

Texas Data Center Campus Infrastructure Responsibility Matrix

Download the complete toolkit

What is inside

Handbook and worked example

Editable control model

Operating records

Version and source record

Who should use it

Connected Sitebraid pathways

Infrastructure budget gap

Service provider gap

Campus readiness

Site Selection and Assessment

Connected Sitebraid analysis

Infrastructure cost allocation

The campus as an industrial utility system

Switchyard Drawdown Control Pack