Skip to content

Crusoe Armstrong County / Goodnight: power and evidence

A campus under construction beside Goodnight wind generation, with a documented co-location and net-metering trail. Wind-farm ratings and data-center load must be kept separate.

By · Published · Source dates are stated below

Texas project research · Source-linked changes

What is established?

Crusoe; campus for Google · Armstrong County, Texas

265.5 MW Goodnight 1 wind rating; campus output unknown

Evidence basis: Operator construction report, PUCT applicant filing and TCEQ registry. Sources checked .

Project identity, phase and capacity boundaries
FieldSource-linked findingEvidence
Campus and customerCrusoe identifies itself as developer of Google's Armstrong County campusCrusoe: Armstrong County campus for Google
Construction milestoneGroundbreaking in June 2025; construction underway in the September 28, 2026 reportCrusoe: Armstrong County campus for Google
Adjacent wind, as reportedGoodnight 1: 265.5 MW and operational; Goodnight 2: 265.5 MW and under constructionCrusoe: Armstrong County campus for Google
Metering proceedingPUCT 59220: applicants sought rehearing of conditions on the expanded co-located arrangementPUCT docket 59220, item 73: motion for rehearing
Different second-phase rating in the filingAugust motion describes Crusoe Two and Goodnight 2 at 260 MW each; this differs from the later wind announcement's 265.5 MWPUCT docket 59220, item 73: motion for rehearing
Air-registry identityGoodnight Data Center; RN112229901; 182880 listed as a new applicationTCEQ: Goodnight Data Center application 182880

How to interpret the record

Goodnight is a co-location and metering case. Crusoe reports a direct wind connection and a campus being built for Google. The wind-farm nameplate is not a measurement of firm supply to the campus, and it is not the same quantity as IT load.

The PUCT filing makes the grid relationship material: multiple loads and wind facilities are discussed behind a shared point of interconnection. A motion for rehearing argues the applicants' position. It cannot establish that the requested changes were granted or that the same conditions remain current after subsequent orders.

There is also a useful source discrepancy to preserve. The August filing describes the second wind facility at 260 MW; Crusoe's September announcement uses 265.5 MW. BTW retains both with their source dates and definitions. It does not silently choose a rating or sum wind capacity into an operating data-center total.

What remains unknown?

  • Current campus IT load and metered generation delivered to it
  • Final disposition of the August rehearing request and any later operating conditions
  • Reason for the second-phase 260 / 265.5 MW difference
  • Generation equipment and operating status associated with application 182880

What to check next

  1. Read subsequent PUCT 59220 orders before treating the applicants' requested terms as effective.
  2. Track Goodnight by RN112229901 and keep each air authorization and project phase distinct.
  3. Seek completion and metering evidence for Goodnight 2 before describing the announced wind connection as fully operating.

A documented project participant or equipment model is a research lead, not proof that procurement is open. Scope a monitoring pilot around the specific records and decisions you need.

Sources and dates

Reviewed sources are a dated selection, not a comprehensive search of every filing. Checking a page today does not make its older schedule or physical-status claims current. See automated source coverage.

Questions about this project

Does 265.5 MW mean Google receives that much continuous power?

No. It is the reported rating of Goodnight 1 wind generation. Delivered power and computing load require separate evidence.

Does a rehearing motion change the rules?

The motion asks the regulator to act. Read the resulting order and any later proceedings to establish the applicable conditions.