EL26-67-000 · 2026-07-09 · Individual No Affiliation

Motion to Intervene and Comments of Evan Pierce re the large-load interconnection tariff provisions

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  
BEFORE THE  
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., et al.   
 
)  
 
Docket No. EL26-67-000  
 
I. MOTION TO INTERVENE 
New Era Energy & Digital Inc. is a data center developer pursuing data center and energy 
development in the PJM service area. New Era Energy & Digital Inc. is concerned with 
maintaining transmission reliability and affordability while advancing economic development 
associated with data centers.  
II. COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 203 
The exact name of the movant is New Era Energy & Digital Inc. New Era Energy & Digital’s 
principal place of business is located at 200 N. Loraine Street, Suite 1324, Midland, TX 79701. 
Service of pleadings, documents, and communications in this proceeding should be made on the 
following: Evan A. Pierce, Chief Development Officer – evan@newerainfra.ai 
III. INTRODUCTION AND RELEVANT BACKGROUND 
A. The Commission Opened This Section 206 Proceeding in Response to Rapid 
Large-Load Growth and the Need for Tariff-Specific Reforms in PJM. 
This proceeding arises from the Commission’s ongoing consideration of the transmission, 
reliability, affordability, and cost-allocation issues associated with the rapid growth of large 
loads, namely data centers. On October 23, 2025, the Secretary of Energy issued an advance 
notice of proposed rulemaking requesting that the Commission consider additional action to 
address the addition of large and co-located loads to the interstate transmission system.1 The 
Commission subsequently agreed that large-load growth created an urgent need for reforms to 
ensure timely, orderly, and non-discriminatory interconnection, concluded that further action was 
warranted, and announced its intent to act by the end of June 2026.2 
On June 18, 2026, the Commission instituted this proceeding under section 206 of the Federal 
Power Act—a process for examining and potentially fixing unjust or unreasonable tariff rules.3 
The Commission preliminarily found that PJM’s Open Access Transmission Tariff—the 
 
1 Ensuring the Timely and Orderly Interconnection of Large Loads, Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 
Docket No. RM26-4-000 (October 2025). 
2 Interconnection of Large Loads to the Interstate Transmission Sys., 195 FERC ¶ 61,045, at PP 2–4 (April 2026). 
3 PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 195 FERC ¶ 61,211 (June 2026) (“Order Instituting Proceeding Under Section 206 
of the Federal Power Act”).

rulebook governing access to PJM’s transmission system—appears to be unjust, unreasonable, or 
unduly discriminatory or preferential (the Federal Power Act standard for unlawful tariff terms) 
because it lacks sufficiently clear and consistent provisions addressing the integration of large 
loads onto the PJM transmission system.4 The Commission therefore directed PJM and the PJM 
Transmission Owners to “show cause” why the Tariff remains just and reasonable without such 
provisions, or to explain what Tariff changes would remedy the Commission’s concerns if the 
Commission proceeds to establish a replacement Tariff.5 
The Commission’s order identifies four categories of tariff issues relevant here: (1) the 
application process, study procedures, and ongoing operational requirements for Eligible 
Customers (entities that may request transmission service under PJM’s tariff) seeking 
transmission service on behalf of large loads; (2) transparency and cost-recovery measures for 
Network Upgrade costs (the costs of transmission-system improvements needed to accommodate 
the service) associated with such service; (3) transmission services for flexible large loads that 
are willing and able to limit their use of the transmission system under certain conditions; and (4) 
the rates, terms, and conditions applicable to interconnection customers serving co-located load 
or electrically proximate load (meaning large demand located at or near a generation facility).6 
The Commission also directed PJM to file a report explaining how PJM will ensure that adequate 
generation will be available to serve existing and new large loads.7 
B. The Commission Identified PJM-Specific Concerns Regarding Large Loads, Co-
Located Generation, Flexible Demand, and Resource Adequacy. 
The Commission’s concerns are substantial in PJM. The order notes that PJM’s load forecast 
predicts peak load growth of 32 GW from 2024 to 2030, with 30 GW of that growth projected to 
come from data centers.8 The order also identifies comments raising concerns that large-load 
additions in PJM are contributing to resource-adequacy, reliability, affordability, and 
interconnection-delay challenges.9 In addition, the Commission summarized concerns that 
infrastructure costs driven by data center load could be shifted to other transmission customers, 
including through Network Upgrade costs and transmission costs borne in corresponding PJM 
zones or, where applicable, the broader PJM region.10 
The Commission also emphasized the need for clearer tariff rules governing flexible large loads. 
The order recognizes that certain large loads may be willing and able to limit their withdrawals 
from the transmission system under specified conditions, and preliminarily finds that PJM’s 
 
4 Id.  PP 3, 35. 
5 Id. PP 3, 35, Ordering Para. (B).  
6 Id. PP 3, 35. 
7 Id. PP 3, 102–104, Ordering Para. (C). 
8 Id. P 8.  
9 Id. P 9. 
10 Id. PP 9–10.

Tariff appears unjust and unreasonable because it lacks transmission services reflecting those 
operational characteristics.11 Similarly, the Commission preliminarily found that PJM’s Tariff 
appears to lack generator interconnection study procedures and services that allow 
interconnection customers serving electrically proximate large load or large co-located load to 
obtain interconnection service reflecting the operational dynamics of serving such load. 12 
Finally, the Commission identified a related supply-side concern. PJM has undertaken several 
initiatives to address resource adequacy and large-load growth (whether enough generation will 
be available to meet demand reliably), including the Reliability Resource Initiative, Expedited 
Interconnection Track, voluntary “Bring Your Own New Generation” approach, and the connect-
and-manage framework.13 The Commission nevertheless expressed concern that these efforts 
may be insufficient, particularly in light of generator retirements and tightening supply 
conditions, and directed PJM to file a detailed informational report addressing how adequate 
generation will be available to serve existing and new large loads.14 
The below comments address two issues that fall within the scope of the Commission’s order 
and should be addressed in PJM’s forthcoming filings: first, the use of “Maximum Net 
Withdrawal” as a tariff-based mechanism for evaluating large loads paired with dependable 
nearby generation; and second, fast-track treatment for safe supply additions, including uprates 
(output increases at existing power plants) and reactivation or reconnection of retired or 
mothballed capacity (existing power plants or units that are shut down or inactive), as part of 
PJM’s response to the Commission’s resource-adequacy directive. 
IV. LIMITED COMMENTS 
New Era Energy & Digital submits these limited comments to identify two issues that PJM 
should address in its forthcoming filings in this proceeding. These comments are directed to the 
specific issues raised in the Commission’s June 18, 2026 order: the treatment of generation 
serving electrically proximate or large co-located load, and PJM’s required report on the 
availability of adequate generation to serve existing and new large loads.15 
A. PJM Should Address Maximum Net Withdrawal as Part of Any Framework for 
Generation Serving Electrically Proximate or Large Co-Located Load. 
The Commission preliminarily found that PJM’s Tariff appears to be unjust and unreasonable 
because it lacks generator interconnection study procedures and services allowing an 
 
11 Id. PP 85–87. 
12 Id. PP 88–101; id. P 95. 
13 Id. PP 31–34; id. P 103.  
14 Id. PP 102–104. 
15 PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 195 FERC ¶ 61,211, at PP 3, 35, 88–104 (2026) (“Order Instituting Proceeding 
Under Section 206 of the Federal Power Act”).

interconnection customer to seek generator interconnection service that reflects the operational 
dynamics of serving electrically proximate large load or large co-located load.16 The 
Commission also identified potential generator-side approaches under which a generating 
facility’s output could be limited to match the associated load, existing Energy Resource 
Interconnection Service or Network Resource Interconnection Service (ERIS and NRIS; two 
types of generator interconnection service under PJM’s rules) could be used with controls to 
prevent net injection (power exported onto the transmission system) above the existing 
interconnection agreement, or a new generator interconnection service could ensure no injection 
to the transmission system. 17 
PJM’s response should address the corresponding load-side issue as well. Where a large load is 
paired with dependable nearby generation and accepts binding operational limits on its reliance 
on the transmission system, PJM should evaluate the project based on the facility’s enforceable 
maximum net withdrawal from the transmission system, rather than assuming the facility will 
impose its full gross demand (the facility’s total electricity need before accounting for nearby 
generation) on the grid at all times. 
For purposes of these comments, “Maximum Net Withdrawal” means the enforceable upper 
limit, measured in megawatts at the applicable point of interconnection or delivery point, that the 
combined load/generation configuration may withdraw from the transmission system. A 
Maximum Net Withdrawal framework would not replace reliability analysis. Rather, it would 
provide the correct study assumption where the project’s physical configuration, controls, and 
service obligations make the net-withdrawal limit operationally enforceable. 
Such an approach fits the Commission’s reasoning in this order. The Commission explained that 
where a generating facility’s output is matched to the demand of electrically proximate large load 
or large co-located load, or where the generating facility’s output is limited to ensure no new 
injection, the transmission-system impacts may be limited and may reduce the need for Network 
Upgrades.18 That same principle supports studying the associated load based on an enforceable 
cap on net withdrawals where the load and generation are operated as a controlled configuration. 
PJM should therefore address whether any tariff provisions proposed in response to this order 
should include: (1) a binding net-withdrawal cap in the relevant service agreement or other tariff-
governed arrangement; (2) real-time metering and telemetry (measurement and communications 
data visible to grid operators) for load, generation, and net withdrawals; (3) operational controls 
or protection systems sufficient to maintain withdrawals within the approved limit; (4) operator 
visibility (PJM’s ability to see and manage the facility’s grid impacts in real time) sufficient to 
 
16 Id. P 95. 
17 Id. PP 95, 98, 100. 
18 Id. PP 95–96.

preserve reliability; and (5) tariff consequences if the facility exceeds its approved Maximum 
Net Withdrawal. 
PJM should also explain what transmission service the Eligible Customer must take for a large 
load operated subject to an enforceable Maximum Net Withdrawal. The Commission expressly 
encouraged PJM to consider what type of transmission service an Eligible Customer will need to 
take on behalf of electrically proximate large load or large co-located load, noting that generator 
interconnection service does not itself convey transmission service.19 A Maximum Net 
Withdrawal framework would help answer that question by tying the associated transmission 
service to the project’s enforceable use of the transmission system, rather than to an assumption 
that the full gross load must always be served from the grid. 
B. PJM’s Resource-Adequacy Report Should Address Fast-Track Treatment for Safe 
Supply Additions. 
The Commission separately directed PJM to file an informational report explaining how PJM 
intends to ensure that adequate generation will be available to serve existing and new large 
loads.20 The Commission recognized PJM’s existing efforts, including the Reliability Resource 
Initiative, Expedited Interconnection Track, voluntary “Bring Your Own New Generation” 
approach, connect-and-manage framework, and reliability backstop procurement, but stated that 
those efforts may still fall short in light of generator retirements and tightening supply 
conditions.21 
PJM’s report should address not only how large loads can be served more quickly, but also how 
additional supply can be brought online more quickly where the system impacts are bounded and 
can be studied safely. Large-load growth presents a supply problem as well as a load-service 
problem. A complete response should therefore address whether PJM’s existing tariff and study 
processes allow expedited treatment for limited, low-risk generation additions that can increase 
available supply without requiring a full multi-year queue process. 
In particular, PJM should address whether its Tariff provides an adequate pathway for expedited 
treatment of uprates at existing generating facilities. Such treatment should be limited to 
modifications that rely on existing interconnection facilities, do not involve a change in 
generation technology or fuel type, can be evaluated independently through existing system 
models or a limited-scope study (a narrower review focused on the incremental grid impacts), 
and do not materially affect the cost or timing of lower-queued projects (those that entered the 
interconnection queue later) or already-interconnected projects. Where those conditions are met, 
 
19 Id. P 101. 
20 Order, 195 FERC ¶ 61,211 at PP 102–104, Ordering Para. (c). 
21 Id. P 103.

the incremental nature of the uprate may warrant a narrower and faster study process while 
preserving all applicable reliability requirements. 
PJM should also address whether its Tariff provides an adequate pathway for expedited 
reconnection or reactivation of retired or mothballed capacity. Such treatment should be 
available only where the relevant interconnection facilities remain available or can be safely 
restored, required permits and operating authorizations remain available or can be obtained, and 
any reliability impacts can be evaluated through a limited-scope review. The purpose would not 
be to bypass reliability review, but to avoid subjecting bounded reactivations of existing capacity 
to procedures designed for wholly new speculative projects. 
The Commission has already recognized, in this order and related precedent, that certain forms 
of generator interconnection service may allow resources to interconnect more quickly where 
their impacts are limited or where they use existing interconnection capability. PJM’s required 
resource-adequacy report should therefore identify whether existing PJM processes are adequate 
to accelerate safe uprates and reconnections, and if not, what tariff changes or stakeholder 
processes would be needed to create such a pathway. 
C. Reservation of Rights 
Because the Commission has directed PJM to file a 30-day informational report and a 60-day 
show-cause response, and has allowed interested entities to respond after those filings, New Era 
Energy & Digital submits these comments on a limited basis and reserves the right to submit 
further comments after PJM and the Transmission Owners make their directed filings.22 
V. CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, New Era Energy & Digital respectfully requests that the Commission 
grant its motion to intervene and consider these limited comments in evaluating PJM’s 
forthcoming filings in this proceeding. 
 
22 Order, 195 FERC ¶ 61,211, Ordering Paras. (B), (C), (E).