Texas law gives grid operator power to disconnect data centers during crisis

Data center backup power and engineering

• Many commenters say disconnection is acceptable because well-run data centers already assume sudden grid loss and run regular full-load generator tests.
• Typical design: inline UPS/inverters (servers never see raw mains), automatic transfer switches with ~30s cutover, multi‑day fuel tanks feeding “day tanks,” redundant generators, dual UPS feeds, dual substations, and even dual data centers.
• Some note “reliability theater”: tests skipped, generators not actually loaded, repair tags ignored. They see the law as forcing weak operators to either harden or accept outages.
• Others raise EPA limits on generator runtime and question emissions and compliance, though enforcement (federal vs state) is debated.

Critical infrastructure and healthcare dependence

• Concern that classifying large data centers as “non‑critical” ignores their role in telecom, EHRs, and cloud-based hospital systems.
• Counterpoint: hospitals themselves are heavily regulated with multiple backup power branches and are treated as critical; if their cloud provider can’t ride through grid loss, that provider shouldn’t host life‑critical workloads.
• Some argue that if connectivity and local clinic power fail, highly available data centers are moot anyway.

Texas grid reliability and market structure

• Extensive criticism that Texas’ “energy‑only,” real‑time auction underprices reliability; investments in winterization and extra capacity get undercut.
• Others push back: price spikes (e.g., $9/kWh in the 2021 freeze) are a strong reliability signal; failure reflects bad market design and regulation, not “markets” per se.
• Isolation from the larger US interconnect is widely blamed for deadly outages; defenders cite federal rules and ideology around avoiding federal regulation.

Prioritization of human vs compute load

• Broad agreement that, in emergencies, residential heating/cooling and hospitals should outrank AI training or generic compute.
• Some note the difficulty of fine-grained prioritization (idle AC vs expensive multi-day training jobs) and expect legal challenges over targeting data centers only.

Practical and economic impacts

• Worries that the law could be used to politically pressure or harass very large sites (with the 75 MW threshold seen as tailor-made).
• Others expect it to push big AI/data operators toward on‑site generation (e.g., dedicated gas plants) and more batteries, not away from Texas.