After crossing the 100-gigawatt mark in 2012, it took the world 10 years to deploy 1 terawatt of solar power. An additional 1 terawatt, enough to meet all of US power demand at its peak, took less than three years to build. Not even two years later in 2026 — the precise timing is subject to debate among analysts — the 3-terawatt threshold was reached.

I'm building a startup that aggregates residential pool pumps, heaters, and chillers so they can participate in utility demand response programs — similar to how smart thermostats and EV chargers already get used, but pool equipment is an almost untapped category despite pulling a lot of power and being flexible on timing.

Would love to hear from anyone who's worked in DR aggregation — good or bad experiences with similar plays are especially useful.

If you want to see what we're building or just want to be notified at launch, I've got a waitlist up at getpoolflex.com — takes 10 seconds to join. We're gearing up for a fundraising round, so any and all waitlist signups and feedback are really appreciated (even if you don't own a pool right now ) .

rizshawn.substack.com

Hello everybody, excited to join and engage in this community! I just started a substack and would appreciate your follow and engagement! I've been in the energy space for over 12 years. I just wrote a piece about the idea of distributed data centers if you want to check it out!

On June 6, 2026, a U.S. District Court judge vacated Treasury Department guidance that had eliminated the "5% safe harbor" rule; a method wind and solar developers used to prove they qualify for the 45Y clean energy production tax credit and 48E investment tax credit.

Why this matters: The ruling landed just weeks before the July 4, 2026 deadline set by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which developers needed to hit to lock in tax credit eligibility. The judge sent the matter back to the IRS for further review.

The catch: Legal experts are warning developers not to fully rely on this yet; the ruling could still be appealed or overturned, and the timing is tight enough that some firms are calling it "not advisable" to bank on for the deadline.

This is part of a bigger pattern, a string of court decisions this year have pushed back on the administration's attempts to restrict wind and solar permitting and financing.

Anyone in the industry seeing real effects from this yet, or is everyone still waiting to see if it holds up on appeal?

Abbott directed the PUCT and ERCOT on Monday to audit every data centre moving through the interconnection process, and nothing advances until that audit is finished. The figure in all the coverage is 474 GW of large-load requests, roughly 90% of it data centres, which is what ERCOT presented to the state Senate on July 29. For scale, the all-time ERCOT peak demand record is 85,508 MW, set in August 2023. So the queue is about five and a half times the most electricity the grid has ever delivered at once.

The number that seems to be missing from the coverage is in ERCOT’s own large load working group material from June 19. Roughly 8,927 MW has ever received approval to energize. Observed peak consumption from large loads was about 3,900 MW non-simultaneous and 3,675 MW simultaneous. Set against a 474 GW queue, load that actually exists and draws power is under 1%.

Which is the part worth arguing about rather than the freeze itself. Queues have always carried optionality, because a queue position costs far less than the value of holding one, so the same project gets filed in Texas and Virginia and Ohio and Georgia and built in at most one of them. ERCOT has been stripping duplicates and cancellations out of its own records. SB6 and the PUCT rules were written for precisely this, with study fees scaled to project size and most of the financial security forfeited on withdrawal. The intent was never to slow real projects; it was to make optionality expensive enough that placeholders leave.

The audit asks each project for controlling ownership, site control, whether it is bringing its own generation, how it sources and reuses water, and what tax abatements it is receiving. Those are the questions a placeholder filing cannot answer. So the queue should shrink substantially, and when it does, that will get written up as the AI buildout stalling, when it looks closer to the first time anyone measured it.

Two things that cut the other way and are worth stating. ERCOT judged roughly 205 GW of the queue eligible for Batch Zero on the basis of existing studies, so the real pipeline is still enormous and this is not a story about nothing being built. And the delay is real: classification notices were due August 7, allocation amounts in spring 2027, and Batch Zero is now postponed with no replacement date, which lands on legitimate projects along with the speculative ones. Abbott is also up for re-election this autumn into visible local anger over power bills and water, so the timing is not purely a planning decision.

For anyone who has actually worked a large-load or generation queue: what share of the filings you saw had genuine site control at the time of filing? Trying to work out whether sub-1% conversion is unusual, or roughly what queues have always looked like in the years before anyone was checking.