- Docket
- EL26-67-000
- Item
- E-7
- Reporter cite
- 195 FERC ¶ 61,211
- Region
- Mid-Atlantic / 13 states + DC
- Respondents
- PJM + 45 named transmission owners
- Length
- 114 pages
Read the order PDF (committed copy) Official source on ferc.gov ↗
This proceeding is held in abeyance
On August 14, 2026 FERC granted the abeyance motion of PJM, the Indicated PJM Transmission Owners and Silver Run Electric (letter order 20260814-3059, 196 FERC ¶ 61,129). Responses to the show cause order are now due November 16, 2026, answers December 16, 2026. A respondent that instead makes an FPA section 205 filing by that date has its obligation to respond suspended, and the proceeding stays in abeyance pending further Commission direction.
Three separate motions granted at once. The order records the stakeholder calendar it relied on: sessions Jul 30, Aug 18 and Sep 16, and an advisory vote at the Members Committee on Oct 28. PJM says it will file under §205 in early-to-mid November; the Transmission Owners say no later than Nov 16.
the obligation of the respondent(s) who have made such an FPA section 205 filing to file a response to the Show Cause Order will be suspended, and this proceeding will continue to be held in abeyance pending further Commission directive in this proceeding.
What is unique to PJM
PJM is the control case, the one region that does not start from a blank page. FERC built PJM’s co-location rules in the parallel EL25-49 proceeding (finalized the same morning in Item E-2), so E-7 asks PJM to carry those new services (Interim NITS and Firm/Non-Firm Contract Demand) into a general large-load framework. The catch: every request still runs through one ‘first-ready, first-served’ clustered New Services Queue with no large-load-specific study, even though an Eligible Customer already pays ‘100% of the costs of the minimum amount of Network Upgrades’ its request triggers. So the order presses how to add flexible-load service and protect deals nearing completion without breaking that queue.
What FERC presses PJM on
- Protecting existing deals: a reasonable implementation period, and time to finalize agreements nearing completion when the new tariff provisions are filed (Section IV).
- Whether the new flexible-load services would change regional and local transmission planning, given uncertainty in the type, location, and quantity of such loads (Section IV).
- Whether a generating facility serving an electrically proximate or co-located load could join PJM’s energy, ancillary-services, and capacity markets, and how it would be accredited (Section IV).
Quoted directives, 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.
-
Application / study process P 6(a)
“the application process, study procedures, and ongoing operational requirements that apply to Eligible Customers seeking transmission service on behalf of large loads”
-
Alternative transmission technologies P 70
“require the evaluation of alternative transmission technologies in transmission service request studies … to accurately account for advanced transmission technologies”
-
Cost-recovery agreement P 77
“a pro forma cost recovery agreement between PJM, the relevant transmission owner, and Eligible Customer … to mitigate the risk of cost shifting among transmission customers”
-
Cost transparency P 71
“publicly post and regularly update data that details … proposed large load additions … the planned Network Upgrades … and cost estimates for those Network Upgrades”
-
Service for flexible loads P 85
“transmission services that reflect Eligible Customers taking transmission service on behalf of flexible large loads that are willing and able to limit their use of the transmission system”
Region-specific findings
Co-location and behind-the-meter generation were already settled in the separate PJM Co-Location Order (193 FERC ¶ 61,217, Dec. 18, 2025; reh’g 195 FERC ¶ 61,209); this §206 order builds on that record rather than re-litigating it.
Directs PJM to extend the services created there — Interim NITS, Firm and Non-Firm Contract Demand — to flexible large loads. P 85
“willing and able to limit their use of the transmission system”
The only order to fix a distance test: an ‘electrically proximate large load’ is one no more than two substations from the generating facility. P 62
“no more than two substations”
Targets large co-located loads of 50 MW or greater for new generator-interconnection study procedures, tied to the Co-Location Order’s definition. P 62
“50 MW or greater”
Excludes named non-public-utility TOs (e.g., AMP Transmission, Cleveland Public Power, East Kentucky Power Cooperative) from the show-cause directive under FPA § 201(f), but PJM must still answer for their Tariff provisions. P 7 n.13
“AMP Transmission”
Today PJM studies every new request in one first-ready, first-served, three-phase clustered ‘New Services Queue’ (Part VIII of the Tariff), with no study provisions specific to large loads. pp. 21
“first-ready, first-served clustered cycle”
Under the existing cost rule, an Eligible Customer already pays 100% of the minimum Network Upgrades its request triggers that would not have been in the Regional Transmission Expansion Plan, net of benefits and not less than zero. pp. 22
“100% of the costs of the minimum amount of Network Upgrades”
What the public comment record says about PJM
64 of the RM26-4 record's public comments name-check PJM specifically (14 support · 5 oppose · 3 mixed · 42 neutral). That's a floor, not a full count: only about 40% of the corpus carries a region tag at all, so a comment that discusses PJM without the audit pass catching a region-specific mention won't appear here.
-
American Electric Power Service Corporation support
“The Commission's reforms should avoid introducing additional delays to large load interconnection by disrupting state and regional-level efforts.” p. 21
-
Bloom Energy Corporation oppose
“under existing rules, load is studied as if it seeks firm rights to withdraw 100% from the transmission system to meet its requirements, while the generator is studied as if it seeks to inject 100% of its capacity into the transmission grid, with some RTOs, like PJM, requiring that generator capacity also be studied for deliverability to load throughout the system. These bifurcated, non-integrated processes ignore on-site supply benefits and can improperly identify required Network Upgrades, resulting in slower interconnection and unnecessarily increasing Network Upgrade costs.” p. 7
-
Eolian, L.P. mixed
“the Commission must require additional reforms beyond recently approved initiatives that some regions have enacted to ensure timely and affordable integration of large loads. While recent reforms in Southwest Power Pool (SPP) and PJM Interconnection, LLC (PJM) are positive steps, these reforms fall short of what is needed to fully address the large load interconnection challenges identified in the ANOPR.” p. 7
-
AES Corporation, The neutral
“AES believes that the Commission could provide certainty to the market by issuing guidance, whether in the form of a policy statement or otherwise, regarding how termination fees from construction service agreements associated with transmission network upgrades should be accounted for in transmission rates.” p. 11
See all 64 comments about PJM →
Section IV briefing questions
This order poses its briefing questions at page 69 of the committed PDF: open at § IV. The questions are templated across the six show cause orders; the full set, and what the public record says on each, is in the comment record.
Respondents named in the order
AEP Appalachian Transmission Company, Inc. · AEP Indiana Michigan Transmission Company, Inc. · AEP Kentucky Transmission Company, Inc. · AEP Ohio Transmission Company, Inc. · AEP West Virginia Transmission Company, Inc. · Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc. · American Transmission Systems, Incorporated · Appalachian Power Company · Atlantic City Electric Company · Baltimore Gas and Electric Company · Commonwealth Edison Company · Commonwealth Edison Company of Indiana, Inc. · Dayton Power and Light Company · Delmarva Power & Light Company · Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc. · Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. · Duquesne Light Company · Essential Power Rock Springs, LLC · Hudson Transmission Partners, LLC · Indiana Michigan Power Company · Jersey Central Power & Light Company · Kentucky Power Company · Keystone Appalachian Transmission Company · Kingsport Power Company · Linden VFT, LLC · Mid-Atlantic Interstate Transmission, LLC · Monongahela Power Company · Neptune Regional Transmission System, LLC · NextEra Energy Transmission MidAtlantic Indiana, Inc. · Ohio Power Company · Ohio Valley Electric Corporation · Old Dominion Electric Cooperative · PECO Energy Company · PPL Electric Utilities Corporation · The Potomac Edison Company · Potomac Electric Power Company · Public Service Electric and Gas Company · Rockland Electric Company · Silver Run Electric, LLC · Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Company · Transource West Virginia, LLC · UGI Utilities, Inc. · Virginia Electric and Power Company · Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc. · Wheeling Power Company
The other dockets
E-8 MISO · E-9 SPP · E-10 CAISO · E-11 ISO-NE · E-12 NYISO · E-2 PJM
Return to the full briefing: the timeline, the five reform categories, the procedural clock, and the 273-comment RM26-4 record.