- Docket
- EL25-49-002
- Item
- E-2
- Reporter cite
- 195 FERC ¶ 61,209
- Region
- Mid-Atlantic / 13 states + DC
- Respondents
- PJM + its transmission owners
- Length
- 278 pages
Read the order PDF (committed copy) Official source on ferc.gov ↗
What is unique to PJM
E-2 is the order that finalizes PJM’s co-location framework. Voted the same morning as the six §206 orders, it closes the loop on the proceeding whose three new transmission services they extend. It resolves rehearing, clarification, a compliance filing, and a paper hearing on PJM’s December 18, 2025 co-location order (193 FERC ¶ 61,217, the order that created the framework), modifying and setting that order aside in part, accepting PJM’s compliance filing only in part, and (most consequentially) establishing the just-and-reasonable rates, terms, and conditions for the three services a co-located load uses to take transmission service: Interim NITS (the interim non-firm bridge until the network upgrades are built), Firm Contract Demand (FCD, firm service), and Non-Firm Contract Demand (NFCD, curtailable). It also rewrites the retail behind-the-meter-generation netting rules (grandfathering existing participants for a three-year transition) and rejects PJM’s proposed cap tying required NFCD service to the co-located generator’s dedicated megawatts. Commissioner Chang concurs separately on the still-open ‘minimum charge’ cost-shift question.
What this order holds
- Rehearing & clarification: the December Order is modified and set aside in part; the clarification requests are granted in part and denied in part.
- Compliance: PJM’s compliance filing is accepted in part and rejected in part, with a further compliance filing (and one from the PJM transmission owners) due within 60 days (about Aug 17, 2026) to set the final Tariff terms.
- Paper hearing: the Commission sets the just-and-reasonable rates, terms, and conditions for Interim NITS, FCD, and NFCD service.
Quoted holdings, with page cites
Each quotation below is verbatim from the committed order text and links to the page it appears on. A test asserts every one of them against the extracted source.
-
One of three new co-location services P 2
“the Eligible Customer taking transmission service on behalf of the Co-Located Load takes one of three transmission services”
-
Interim NITS P 2
“a new interim, non-firm transmission service available until all Network Upgrades necessary to provide the requested NITS are complete (Interim NITS)”
-
Retail BTMG netting rewritten P 4
“the Behind the Meter Generation (BTMG) rules in the Tariff to be no longer just and reasonable, and the Commission directed PJM to submit in its compliance filing revisions to its Tariff to revise the retail BTMG netting rules and to implement a transition process for existing BTMG participants”
-
Paper hearing sets the rates Disposition
“we establish as just and reasonable certain rates, terms, and conditions for the new transmission services directed in the December Order”
-
December Order set aside in part FPA § 313(a)
“we are modifying the discussion in the December Order and setting aside the order, in part”
Region-specific findings
E-2 resolves rehearing of PJM’s December 18, 2025 §206 co-location order (193 FERC ¶ 61,217), the order that created the co-location framework whose new transmission services the other six orders extend. p. 2
“On December 18, 2025, the Commission issued an order in the show cause proceeding in Docket No. EL25-49-000”
On compliance, PJM must set the specific Tariff terms an Interconnection Customer in PJM seeking to serve Co-Located Load must follow to effectuate a Co-Location Arrangement. p. 3
“Interconnection Customer in PJM seeking to serve Co-Located Load must follow”
The Commission rejected PJM’s proposed NFCD ‘Maximum Facility Output’ limit, which would have tied required service to the megawatts of the co-located generator dedicated to the load. p. 271
“we reject PJM’s proposal”
On the ‘minimum charge’ question, the Commission majority found the record does not adequately substantiate either the need for an additional charge on co-located loads or how to calculate one, and declined to establish one at this time. p. 207
“does not adequately substantiate the need for an additional charge at this time”
Respondents named in the order
The other dockets
E-7 PJM · E-8 MISO · E-9 SPP · E-10 CAISO · E-11 ISO-NE · E-12 NYISO
Return to the full briefing: the timeline, the five reform categories, the procedural clock, and the 273-comment RM26-4 record.