{"document":{"slug":"filing-20260709-5287","title":"Motion to Intervene and Comments of Evan Pierce re the large-load interconnection tariff provisions","issued":"2026-07-09","accession":"20260709-5287","docket":"EL26-67-000","group":"PJM filings","filer":"Individual No Affiliation","kind":"comments","file":"sources/originals/20260709-5287_01.pdf","url":"https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/filelist?accession_Number=20260709-5287","sha256":"1feb71d7e777624167ee8d97016fcb821ba171f87563fc618badaf8f039e5339","pages":6,"tokens":2332,"emptyPages":[]},"pages":[{"page":1,"startToken":0,"endToken":361,"text":"UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  \nBEFORE THE  \nFEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION \nPJM Interconnection, L.L.C., et al.   \n \n)  \n \nDocket No. EL26-67-000  \n \nI. MOTION TO INTERVENE \nNew Era Energy & Digital Inc. is a data center developer pursuing data center and energy \ndevelopment in the PJM service area. New Era Energy & Digital Inc. is concerned with \nmaintaining transmission reliability and affordability while advancing economic development \nassociated with data centers.  \nII. COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 203 \nThe exact name of the movant is New Era Energy & Digital Inc. New Era Energy & Digital’s \nprincipal place of business is located at 200 N. Loraine Street, Suite 1324, Midland, TX 79701. \nService of pleadings, documents, and communications in this proceeding should be made on the \nfollowing: Evan A. Pierce, Chief Development Officer – evan@newerainfra.ai \nIII. INTRODUCTION AND RELEVANT BACKGROUND \nA. The Commission Opened This Section 206 Proceeding in Response to Rapid \nLarge-Load Growth and the Need for Tariff-Specific Reforms in PJM. \nThis proceeding arises from the Commission’s ongoing consideration of the transmission, \nreliability, affordability, and cost-allocation issues associated with the rapid growth of large \nloads, namely data centers. On October 23, 2025, the Secretary of Energy issued an advance \nnotice of proposed rulemaking requesting that the Commission consider additional action to \naddress the addition of large and co-located loads to the interstate transmission system.1 The \nCommission subsequently agreed that large-load growth created an urgent need for reforms to \nensure timely, orderly, and non-discriminatory interconnection, concluded that further action was \nwarranted, and announced its intent to act by the end of June 2026.2 \nOn June 18, 2026, the Commission instituted this proceeding under section 206 of the Federal \nPower Act—a process for examining and potentially fixing unjust or unreasonable tariff rules.3 \nThe Commission preliminarily found that PJM’s Open Access Transmission Tariff—the \n \n1 Ensuring the Timely and Orderly Interconnection of Large Loads, Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, \nDocket No. RM26-4-000 (October 2025). \n2 Interconnection of Large Loads to the Interstate Transmission Sys., 195 FERC ¶ 61,045, at PP 2–4 (April 2026). \n3 PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 195 FERC ¶ 61,211 (June 2026) (“Order Instituting Proceeding Under Section 206 \nof the Federal Power Act”)."},{"page":2,"startToken":361,"endToken":796,"text":"rulebook governing access to PJM’s transmission system—appears to be unjust, unreasonable, or \nunduly discriminatory or preferential (the Federal Power Act standard for unlawful tariff terms) \nbecause it lacks sufficiently clear and consistent provisions addressing the integration of large \nloads onto the PJM transmission system.4 The Commission therefore directed PJM and the PJM \nTransmission Owners to “show cause” why the Tariff remains just and reasonable without such \nprovisions, or to explain what Tariff changes would remedy the Commission’s concerns if the \nCommission proceeds to establish a replacement Tariff.5 \nThe Commission’s order identifies four categories of tariff issues relevant here: (1) the \napplication process, study procedures, and ongoing operational requirements for Eligible \nCustomers (entities that may request transmission service under PJM’s tariff) seeking \ntransmission service on behalf of large loads; (2) transparency and cost-recovery measures for \nNetwork Upgrade costs (the costs of transmission-system improvements needed to accommodate \nthe service) associated with such service; (3) transmission services for flexible large loads that \nare willing and able to limit their use of the transmission system under certain conditions; and (4) \nthe rates, terms, and conditions applicable to interconnection customers serving co-located load \nor electrically proximate load (meaning large demand located at or near a generation facility).6 \nThe Commission also directed PJM to file a report explaining how PJM will ensure that adequate \ngeneration will be available to serve existing and new large loads.7 \nB. The Commission Identified PJM-Specific Concerns Regarding Large Loads, Co-\nLocated Generation, Flexible Demand, and Resource Adequacy. \nThe Commission’s concerns are substantial in PJM. The order notes that PJM’s load forecast \npredicts peak load growth of 32 GW from 2024 to 2030, with 30 GW of that growth projected to \ncome from data centers.8 The order also identifies comments raising concerns that large-load \nadditions in PJM are contributing to resource-adequacy, reliability, affordability, and \ninterconnection-delay challenges.9 In addition, the Commission summarized concerns that \ninfrastructure costs driven by data center load could be shifted to other transmission customers, \nincluding through Network Upgrade costs and transmission costs borne in corresponding PJM \nzones or, where applicable, the broader PJM region.10 \nThe Commission also emphasized the need for clearer tariff rules governing flexible large loads. \nThe order recognizes that certain large loads may be willing and able to limit their withdrawals \nfrom the transmission system under specified conditions, and preliminarily finds that PJM’s \n \n4 Id.  PP 3, 35. \n5 Id. PP 3, 35, Ordering Para. (B).  \n6 Id. PP 3, 35. \n7 Id. PP 3, 102–104, Ordering Para. (C). \n8 Id. P 8.  \n9 Id. P 9. \n10 Id. PP 9–10."},{"page":3,"startToken":796,"endToken":1209,"text":"Tariff appears unjust and unreasonable because it lacks transmission services reflecting those \noperational characteristics.11 Similarly, the Commission preliminarily found that PJM’s Tariff \nappears to lack generator interconnection study procedures and services that allow \ninterconnection customers serving electrically proximate large load or large co-located load to \nobtain interconnection service reflecting the operational dynamics of serving such load. 12 \nFinally, the Commission identified a related supply-side concern. PJM has undertaken several \ninitiatives to address resource adequacy and large-load growth (whether enough generation will \nbe available to meet demand reliably), including the Reliability Resource Initiative, Expedited \nInterconnection Track, voluntary “Bring Your Own New Generation” approach, and the connect-\nand-manage framework.13 The Commission nevertheless expressed concern that these efforts \nmay be insufficient, particularly in light of generator retirements and tightening supply \nconditions, and directed PJM to file a detailed informational report addressing how adequate \ngeneration will be available to serve existing and new large loads.14 \nThe below comments address two issues that fall within the scope of the Commission’s order \nand should be addressed in PJM’s forthcoming filings: first, the use of “Maximum Net \nWithdrawal” as a tariff-based mechanism for evaluating large loads paired with dependable \nnearby generation; and second, fast-track treatment for safe supply additions, including uprates \n(output increases at existing power plants) and reactivation or reconnection of retired or \nmothballed capacity (existing power plants or units that are shut down or inactive), as part of \nPJM’s response to the Commission’s resource-adequacy directive. \nIV. LIMITED COMMENTS \nNew Era Energy & Digital submits these limited comments to identify two issues that PJM \nshould address in its forthcoming filings in this proceeding. These comments are directed to the \nspecific issues raised in the Commission’s June 18, 2026 order: the treatment of generation \nserving electrically proximate or large co-located load, and PJM’s required report on the \navailability of adequate generation to serve existing and new large loads.15 \nA. PJM Should Address Maximum Net Withdrawal as Part of Any Framework for \nGeneration Serving Electrically Proximate or Large Co-Located Load. \nThe Commission preliminarily found that PJM’s Tariff appears to be unjust and unreasonable \nbecause it lacks generator interconnection study procedures and services allowing an \n \n11 Id. PP 85–87. \n12 Id. PP 88–101; id. P 95. \n13 Id. PP 31–34; id. P 103.  \n14 Id. PP 102–104. \n15 PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 195 FERC ¶ 61,211, at PP 3, 35, 88–104 (2026) (“Order Instituting Proceeding \nUnder Section 206 of the Federal Power Act”)."},{"page":4,"startToken":1209,"endToken":1641,"text":"interconnection customer to seek generator interconnection service that reflects the operational \ndynamics of serving electrically proximate large load or large co-located load.16 The \nCommission also identified potential generator-side approaches under which a generating \nfacility’s output could be limited to match the associated load, existing Energy Resource \nInterconnection Service or Network Resource Interconnection Service (ERIS and NRIS; two \ntypes of generator interconnection service under PJM’s rules) could be used with controls to \nprevent net injection (power exported onto the transmission system) above the existing \ninterconnection agreement, or a new generator interconnection service could ensure no injection \nto the transmission system. 17 \nPJM’s response should address the corresponding load-side issue as well. Where a large load is \npaired with dependable nearby generation and accepts binding operational limits on its reliance \non the transmission system, PJM should evaluate the project based on the facility’s enforceable \nmaximum net withdrawal from the transmission system, rather than assuming the facility will \nimpose its full gross demand (the facility’s total electricity need before accounting for nearby \ngeneration) on the grid at all times. \nFor purposes of these comments, “Maximum Net Withdrawal” means the enforceable upper \nlimit, measured in megawatts at the applicable point of interconnection or delivery point, that the \ncombined load/generation configuration may withdraw from the transmission system. A \nMaximum Net Withdrawal framework would not replace reliability analysis. Rather, it would \nprovide the correct study assumption where the project’s physical configuration, controls, and \nservice obligations make the net-withdrawal limit operationally enforceable. \nSuch an approach fits the Commission’s reasoning in this order. The Commission explained that \nwhere a generating facility’s output is matched to the demand of electrically proximate large load \nor large co-located load, or where the generating facility’s output is limited to ensure no new \ninjection, the transmission-system impacts may be limited and may reduce the need for Network \nUpgrades.18 That same principle supports studying the associated load based on an enforceable \ncap on net withdrawals where the load and generation are operated as a controlled configuration. \nPJM should therefore address whether any tariff provisions proposed in response to this order \nshould include: (1) a binding net-withdrawal cap in the relevant service agreement or other tariff-\ngoverned arrangement; (2) real-time metering and telemetry (measurement and communications \ndata visible to grid operators) for load, generation, and net withdrawals; (3) operational controls \nor protection systems sufficient to maintain withdrawals within the approved limit; (4) operator \nvisibility (PJM’s ability to see and manage the facility’s grid impacts in real time) sufficient to \n \n16 Id. P 95. \n17 Id. PP 95, 98, 100. \n18 Id. PP 95–96."},{"page":5,"startToken":1641,"endToken":2047,"text":"preserve reliability; and (5) tariff consequences if the facility exceeds its approved Maximum \nNet Withdrawal. \nPJM should also explain what transmission service the Eligible Customer must take for a large \nload operated subject to an enforceable Maximum Net Withdrawal. The Commission expressly \nencouraged PJM to consider what type of transmission service an Eligible Customer will need to \ntake on behalf of electrically proximate large load or large co-located load, noting that generator \ninterconnection service does not itself convey transmission service.19 A Maximum Net \nWithdrawal framework would help answer that question by tying the associated transmission \nservice to the project’s enforceable use of the transmission system, rather than to an assumption \nthat the full gross load must always be served from the grid. \nB. PJM’s Resource-Adequacy Report Should Address Fast-Track Treatment for Safe \nSupply Additions. \nThe Commission separately directed PJM to file an informational report explaining how PJM \nintends to ensure that adequate generation will be available to serve existing and new large \nloads.20 The Commission recognized PJM’s existing efforts, including the Reliability Resource \nInitiative, Expedited Interconnection Track, voluntary “Bring Your Own New Generation” \napproach, connect-and-manage framework, and reliability backstop procurement, but stated that \nthose efforts may still fall short in light of generator retirements and tightening supply \nconditions.21 \nPJM’s report should address not only how large loads can be served more quickly, but also how \nadditional supply can be brought online more quickly where the system impacts are bounded and \ncan be studied safely. Large-load growth presents a supply problem as well as a load-service \nproblem. A complete response should therefore address whether PJM’s existing tariff and study \nprocesses allow expedited treatment for limited, low-risk generation additions that can increase \navailable supply without requiring a full multi-year queue process. \nIn particular, PJM should address whether its Tariff provides an adequate pathway for expedited \ntreatment of uprates at existing generating facilities. Such treatment should be limited to \nmodifications that rely on existing interconnection facilities, do not involve a change in \ngeneration technology or fuel type, can be evaluated independently through existing system \nmodels or a limited-scope study (a narrower review focused on the incremental grid impacts), \nand do not materially affect the cost or timing of lower-queued projects (those that entered the \ninterconnection queue later) or already-interconnected projects. Where those conditions are met, \n \n19 Id. P 101. \n20 Order, 195 FERC ¶ 61,211 at PP 102–104, Ordering Para. (c). \n21 Id. P 103."},{"page":6,"startToken":2047,"endToken":2332,"text":"the incremental nature of the uprate may warrant a narrower and faster study process while \npreserving all applicable reliability requirements. \nPJM should also address whether its Tariff provides an adequate pathway for expedited \nreconnection or reactivation of retired or mothballed capacity. Such treatment should be \navailable only where the relevant interconnection facilities remain available or can be safely \nrestored, required permits and operating authorizations remain available or can be obtained, and \nany reliability impacts can be evaluated through a limited-scope review. The purpose would not \nbe to bypass reliability review, but to avoid subjecting bounded reactivations of existing capacity \nto procedures designed for wholly new speculative projects. \nThe Commission has already recognized, in this order and related precedent, that certain forms \nof generator interconnection service may allow resources to interconnect more quickly where \ntheir impacts are limited or where they use existing interconnection capability. PJM’s required \nresource-adequacy report should therefore identify whether existing PJM processes are adequate \nto accelerate safe uprates and reconnections, and if not, what tariff changes or stakeholder \nprocesses would be needed to create such a pathway. \nC. Reservation of Rights \nBecause the Commission has directed PJM to file a 30-day informational report and a 60-day \nshow-cause response, and has allowed interested entities to respond after those filings, New Era \nEnergy & Digital submits these comments on a limited basis and reserves the right to submit \nfurther comments after PJM and the Transmission Owners make their directed filings.22 \nV. CONCLUSION \nFor the foregoing reasons, New Era Energy & Digital respectfully requests that the Commission \ngrant its motion to intervene and consider these limited comments in evaluating PJM’s \nforthcoming filings in this proceeding. \n \n22 Order, 195 FERC ¶ 61,211, Ordering Paras. (B), (C), (E)."}],"sections":[{"p":1,"at":0,"title":"Opening text","method":"opening text","endPage":1,"endAt":152,"startToken":0,"endToken":20},{"p":1,"at":152,"title":"I. MOTION TO INTERVENE","method":"printed heading","endPage":1,"endAt":864,"startToken":20,"endToken":127},{"p":1,"at":864,"title":"III. INTRODUCTION AND RELEVANT BACKGROUND","method":"printed heading","endPage":1,"endAt":907,"startToken":127,"endToken":132},{"p":1,"at":907,"title":"A. The Commission Opened This Section 206 Proceeding in Response to Rapid","method":"printed heading","endPage":2,"endAt":1647,"startToken":132,"endToken":595},{"p":2,"at":1647,"title":"B. The Commission Identified PJM-Specific Concerns Regarding Large Loads, Co-","method":"printed heading","endPage":3,"endAt":1812,"startToken":595,"endToken":1039},{"p":3,"at":1812,"title":"IV. LIMITED COMMENTS","method":"printed heading","endPage":3,"endAt":2283,"startToken":1039,"endToken":1110},{"p":3,"at":2283,"title":"A. PJM Should Address Maximum Net Withdrawal as Part of Any Framework for","method":"printed heading","endPage":5,"endAt":834,"startToken":1110,"endToken":1764},{"p":5,"at":834,"title":"B. PJM’s Resource-Adequacy Report Should Address Fast-Track Treatment for Safe","method":"printed heading","endPage":6,"endAt":1303,"startToken":1764,"endToken":2227},{"p":6,"at":1303,"title":"C. Reservation of Rights","method":"printed heading","endPage":6,"endAt":1699,"startToken":2227,"endToken":2288},{"p":6,"at":1699,"title":"V. CONCLUSION","method":"printed heading","endPage":6,"endAt":1998,"startToken":2288,"endToken":2332}]}