{"document":{"slug":"filing-20260720-5198","title":"The Indicated PJM Transmission Owners submit Request for Clarification, or in the Alternative, Rehearing of the 06/18/2026 Order","issued":"2026-07-20","accession":"20260720-5198","docket":"EL26-67-001","group":"PJM filings","filer":"Indicated PJM Transmission Owners","kind":"request","file":"sources/originals/20260720-5198_01.pdf","url":"https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/filelist?accession_Number=20260720-5198","sha256":"f0fe7f881559ab5486be034c467e4657c97b2521c37771f2598fbf7f83b32127","pages":10,"tokens":3070,"emptyPages":[]},"pages":[{"page":1,"startToken":0,"endToken":401,"text":"UNITED STATES OF AMERICA \nBEFORE THE \nFEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION \n \nPJM Interconnection, L.L.C., et al.   \n)  \n \nDocket No. EL26-67-000 \n \nREQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, REHEARING OF \nTHE INDICATED PJM TRANSMISSION OWNERS \n \nPursuant to Section 313 of the Federal Power Act (“FPA”)1 and Rules 212 and 713 of the \nRules of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“Commission” or \n“FERC”),2 the Indicated PJM Transmission Owners (“PJM Transmission Owners”)3 respectfully \nrequest clarification, or in the alternative, rehearing of the Commission’s order issued on June 18, \n2026, in this proceeding relating to the appropriate definitions of “large load” and “electrically \nproximate large load.”4   \nOn June 18, 2026, the Commission issued show cause orders under section 206 of the FPA \nto PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (“PJM”), Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., \nSouthwest Power Pool, Inc., California Independent System Operator Corporation, ISO New \nEngland Inc., and New York Independent System Operator, Inc., together with their transmission \n \n1  \n16 U.S.C. § 825l(a). \n2  \n18 C.F.R. §§ 385.212 and 385.713 (2025). \n3  \nThe Indicated PJM Transmission Owners are:  American Electric Power Service Corporation on behalf of its \naffiliates, Appalachian Power Company, Indiana Michigan Power Company, Kentucky Power Company, Kingsport \nPower Company, Ohio Power Company, Wheeling Power Company, AEP Appalachian Transmission Company, Inc., \nAEP Indiana Michigan Transmission Company, Inc., AEP Kentucky Transmission Company, Inc., AEP Ohio \nTransmission Company, Inc., and AEP West Virginia Transmission Company, Inc.; The Dayton Power and Light \nCompany d/b/a AES Ohio; Dominion Energy Services, Inc. on behalf of Virginia Electric and Power Company d/b/a \nDominion Energy Virginia; Duke Energy Business Services, LLC for Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc. and Duke Energy \nOhio, Inc.; Duquesne Light Company; East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc.; Exelon Corporation on behalf of its \naffiliates Atlantic City Electric Company, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, Commonwealth Edison Company, \nCommonwealth Edison Company of Indiana, Inc., Delmarva Power & Light Company, PECO Energy Company, and \nPotomac Electric Power Company; FirstEnergy Service Company, on behalf of its affiliates American Transmission \nSystems, Incorporated, Jersey Central Power & Light Company, Mid-Atlantic Interstate Transmission LLC, The \nPotomac Edison Company, Monongahela Power Company, Keystone Appalachian Transmission Company, and \nTrans-Allegheny Interstate Line Company (collectively, the “FirstEnergy Companies”); PPL Electric Utilities \nCorporation; and Rockland Electric Company. \n4  \nPJM Interconnection, L.L.C., et al., 195 FERC ¶ 61,211 (2026) (“PJM Show Cause Order” or “Order”)."},{"page":2,"startToken":401,"endToken":786,"text":"2 \nowners,5 directing each region to justify or reform the tariff provisions governing how large loads \nconnect to and receive service from the transmission system.6   \nThe PJM Show Cause Order preliminarily found that PJM’s existing Open Access \nTransmission Tariff (“PJM Tariff”) appeared to be unjust, unreasonable, or unduly discriminatory \nor preferential because of a lack of sufficiently clear and consistent provisions to address service \nfor large loads and related configurations.7  The Commission therefore directed PJM and its \ntransmission owners, within 60 days, to show cause why the PJM Tariff remains just and \nreasonable without provisions addressing:  (1) the application process, study procedures, and \nongoing operational requirements for Eligible Customers8 seeking transmission service on behalf \nof large loads; (2) additional transparency concerning Network Upgrade costs for such service, \ntogether with the absence of a pro forma cost recovery agreement and a mechanism to ensure \nrelated payments are properly credited to transmission owners’ revenue requirements; (3) \ntransmission service options tailored to flexible large loads willing and able to limit their use of \nthe transmission system under certain conditions; and (4) rates, terms, and conditions applicable \nto interconnection customers serving “electrically proximate large load” or co-located load.9  The \n \n5  \nMidcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., et al., 195 FERC ¶ 61,212 (2026), Southwest Power Pool, et al., \n195 FERC ¶ 61,213 (2026), California Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., et al., 195 FERC ¶ 61,214 (2026), ISO New England \nInc., et al., 195 FERC ¶ 61,215 (2026), New York Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., et al., 195 FERC ¶ 61,216 (2026) \n(collectively, the “Show Cause Orders”). \n6  \nThe Commission’s June 18, 2026, show cause orders follow the Secretary of Energy’s letter, pursuant to \nsection 403 of the Department of Energy Organization Act, directing FERC to initiate a rulemaking proceeding and \nto consider its advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (“ANOPR”) to accelerate large load interconnections.  See \nLetter and ANOPR of Chris Wright, Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Energy (Oct. 23, 2025).  The Commission subsequently \ninvited comments on the proposed ANOPR.  See Notice Inviting Comments, Docket No. RM26-4-000 (issued Oct. \n27, 2025). \n7  \nPJM Show Cause Order at PP 3, 35. \n8  \nAll capitalized terms that are not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in the PJM Tariff. \n9  \nPJM Show Cause Order at PP 3, 35."},{"page":3,"startToken":786,"endToken":1121,"text":"3 \nCommission directed PJM either to justify the absence of such provisions or to propose Tariff \nrevisions addressing those concerns.10 \nThe PJM Transmission Owners share the underlying goals driving the Commission’s \nissuance of the Show Cause Orders: namely, to enable new large load customers to efficiently \ninterconnect to the transmission system while simultaneously ensuring reliability and protecting \nexisting customers.  To that end, the PJM Transmission Owners respectfully seek clarification, or \nin the alternative, rehearing of two preliminary findings in the PJM Show Cause Order:   \n1. The Commission should clarify that adopting the definition of “large load” proposed \nin the Show Cause Order, including the 50 MW threshold criteria, does not prevent \nPJM and the PJM Transmission Owners from proposing and supporting additional \nservice-specific criteria for large load customers relating to the types of services \ncontemplated in the Show Cause Order.  If the Commission declines to make this \nclarification, it should grant rehearing, as a one-size-fits-all approach for all customers \nthat meet the definition of “large load” is likely to be over-inclusive and unduly \ndiscriminatory, and undermine the Commission’s speed-to-power goals for large load \ncustomers, particularly large computational loads that are crucial to serving AI \nprocesses. \n2. The Commission should clarify that PJM and the PJM Transmission Owners will be \npermitted to propose and support a definition of “large load” and “electrically \nproximate large load” that are not based on the location of facilities relative to the Point \nof Interconnection,11 e.g., by proposing a definition that relies on the Point of Change \nof Ownership.  If the Commission declines to adopt this clarification, it should grant \nrehearing.  As PJM and the PJM Transmission Owners have explained in the PJM co-\nlocated load proceeding, there are significant problems with adopting such definitions \nbased on facilities on the customer-side of the Point of Interconnection, including \npotentially encouraging gaming activities that will undermine the efficient and reliable \ninterconnection of large loads.  \n \n10  \nPJM Show Cause Order at PP 3, 35. \n11  \nId. at P 94 & n.7."},{"page":4,"startToken":1121,"endToken":1589,"text":"4 \nI. \nREQUESTS FOR CLARIFICATION AND REHEARING \nA. \nStatement of Issues and Specification of Errors \nTo the extent that the Commission declines to grant clarification as set forth below, the \nPJM Transmission Owners submit the following Statement of Issues and Specification of Errors \npursuant to Rule 713(c)(1) and 713(c)(2) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure:12 \n To the extent that the definition of “large load” proposed in the PJM Show Cause Order \nis intended to restrict PJM and the PJM Transmission Owners from proposing and \nsupporting additional service-specific criteria for large load customers, the PJM Show \nCause Order is arbitrary and capricious, does not reflect reasoned decision-making, and \nis unsupported by substantial evidence in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act \nbecause the Commission did not develop a sufficient record to support such a \nrestriction, and such a restriction would be unjust, unreasonable, and unduly \ndiscriminatory.  Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. \n29, 43 (1983) (an agency “must examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory \nexplanation for its action including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and \nthe choice made’”) (citation omitted) (“State Farm”); Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y. v. \nFERC, 45 F.4th 265 (D.C. Cir. 2022); Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y. v. FERC, 347 F.3d \n964, 972 (D.C. Cir. 2003); PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 161 FERC ¶ 61,252 (2017); \nFla. Gas Transmission Co. v. FERC, 604 F.3d 636, 639 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (quoting Pac. \nGas & Elec. Co. v. FERC, 373 F.3d 1315, 1319 (D.C. Cir. 2004)) (“Fla. Gas”); PJM \nInterconnection, L.L.C., 119 FERC ¶ 61,318 (2007); Midwest Indep. Transmission Sys. \nOperator, Inc., 117 FERC ¶ 61,113 (2006) (“Midwest ISO”). \n  \n The PJM Show Cause Order is arbitrary and capricious, does not reflect reasoned \ndecision-making, and is unsupported by substantial evidence in violation of the \nAdministrative Procedure Act because the Commission did not develop a sufficient \nrecord to support defining “large load” or “electrically proximate large load” by \nreference to the interconnection customer’s point of interconnection.  State Farm, 463 \nU.S. at 43 (an agency “must examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory \nexplanation for its action including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and \nthe choice made’”) (citation omitted); Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y. v. FERC, 45 F.4th \n265; Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y. v. FERC, 347 F.3d at 972; PJM Interconnection, \nL.L.C., 161 FERC ¶ 61,252; Fla. Gas, 604 F.3d at 639 (quoting Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. \nv. FERC, 373 F.3d at 1319); PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 119 FERC ¶ 61,318; \nMidwest ISO, 117 FERC ¶ 61,113. \n \n \n12  \n18 C.F.R. § 385.713(c)(1), (c)(2)."},{"page":5,"startToken":1589,"endToken":1897,"text":"5 \nB. \nArguments \n1. \nThe Commission Should Clarify That the Proposed Definition of \n“Large Load” in the Show Cause Order Does not Limit PJM and the \nPJM Transmission Owners From Proposing Additional Service-\nSpecific Criteria for the Services Contemplated in the Order. \nIn the PJM Show Cause Order, the Commission preliminarily found that the PJM Tariff \nappears unjust and unreasonable because it lacks certain provisions governing the process to \nprovide transmission service to Eligible Customers on behalf of large loads, including a definition \nof large load, as a new category of load.  The Commission further stated that, based on the ANOPR \nrecord, it would be reasonable to define a large load as a new commercial or industrial customer \nat a single site, behind one or more points of interconnection, with a peak load of 50 MW or greater, \ninterconnected at a voltage above 69 kV, and not part of a co-location arrangement.  The \nCommission therefore directed PJM either to show cause why the PJM Tariff remains just and \nreasonable without such a definition or to propose tariff revisions establishing its own definition \nof large load. \nThe Commission should clarify that this definition, including the 50 MW threshold, does \nnot limit PJM or the PJM Transmission Owners from proposing additional criteria or reasonable \ndistinctions between large load customers for purposes of designing and implementing the \nproducts addressed in the Order.  It may not be appropriate to offer identical services to all large \nload customers.  For instance, considerations such as seasonality versus peak load measurements \nand functional distinctions between types of customers (e.g., hyperscale computational loads \nversus “traditional” manufacturing and commercial customers) may merit distinctions in how \ndifferent products are designed, offered and priced.  The Commission therefore should clarify that \nthe proposed large load definition does not prejudge the appropriate criteria for every other purpose \nunder the PJM Tariff."},{"page":6,"startToken":1897,"endToken":2224,"text":"6 \nIf the Commission declines to adopt this clarification, the Commission should grant \nrehearing.  The PJM Show Cause Order fails to justify a conclusion that the proposed large load \ndefinition requires that every customer meeting the definition of large load must be offered the \nsame services under the same rates, terms and conditions.13  To the contrary, requiring a one-size-\nfits all approach for all large load customers with respect to each new service is likely to undermine \nthe goals of the Show Cause Order, particularly the desire for speed-to-power. As the PJM \nTransmission Owners explained in their comments on the ANOPR, an overly inclusive definition \nof “large load” risks repeating the same flaws that occurred with inflated generation \ninterconnection queues.14  It is therefore of critical importance that PJM and the PJM Transmission \nOwners have sufficient flexibility to design and implement services with appropriate criteria that \naccount for meaningful differences between large load customers.  Limiting this flexibility would \nbe arbitrary, capricious, and would not reflect reasoned decision-making.   \n2. \nThe Commission Should Clarify That “Large Load” and “Electrically \nProximate Large Load” Need not be Defined Based on the Point of \nInterconnection. \nAs noted above, the Commission indicated in the PJM Show Cause Order that it would be \nreasonable to define a large load as a new commercial or industrial customer at a single site, behind \none or more points of interconnection.15  Similarly, in discussing potential rules and procedures \nrelating to “electrically proximate large load,” the Commission found that it would be reasonable \nto define “electrically proximate large load” as a large load that is sufficiently electrically close to \nthe interconnection customer’s requested point of interconnection such that, with the exception of \nthe transmission facilities between the two, the impact on the transmission system of the \n \n13  \nPJM Show Cause Order at P 58. \n14  \nIndicated PJM Transmission Owners Comments, Docket No. RM26-4-000, at 4-9 (filed Nov. 21, 2025). \n15  \nPJM Show Cause Order at n.2."},{"page":7,"startToken":2224,"endToken":2575,"text":"7 \ncombination of the generating facility and load will be effectively the same as if they were located \nat the same substation.16 \nThe Commission should clarify that in any Section 205 filing or other response to the PJM \nShow Cause Order, PJM and/or the PJM Transmission Owners are not limited to defining “large \nload” or “electrically proximate large load” based on reference to the point of interconnection, and \nthat they will have sufficient flexibility to propose other points of reference, such as the Point of \nChange of Ownership.  Given the significant detail that the Show Cause Order leaves to PJM and \nthe PJM Transmission Owners to develop as to what constitutes electrical proximity and other \naspects of the Show Cause Order’s proposal, it is crucial that PJM and the PJM Transmission \nOwners have maximum flexibility to ensure speed-to-power, reliability, and customer protection \ngoals are met.  Indeed, the Commission has already been presented, in the related co-located load \nproceeding, with evidence that the point of interconnection frequently is an imprecise boundary \ninsofar as it may unreasonably conflate customer-owned facilities with those owned by other \nentities, including Transmission Owner-owned facilities.17  In that proceeding, PJM and the PJM \nTransmission Owners provided evidence that the definition of “Co-Located Load” should be based \non the Point of Change in Ownership,18 rather than the Point of Interconnection because it reflects \nthe legal and operational boundary between customer-owned facilities and transmission owner \nfacilities and avoids sweeping in transmission owner interconnection facilities into the definition \n \n16  \nId. at P 94. \n17  \nSee PJM 30-Day Compliance Filing, Docket No. ER26-1088-000, at 3 & n.14 (filed Jan. 20, 2026) (“30-Day \nCompliance Filing”); see also PJM Transmission Owners Request for Rehearing or Clarification, Docket No. ER26-\n1088-000, at 4-8 (filed May 18, 2026); PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 195 FERC ¶ 61,030, at PP 27-28 (2026). \n18  \nPJM defined “Point of Change in Ownership” in Tariff, Part VIII, Subpart A, section 400, Definitions P, is \nthe point at which “the Project Developer’s Interconnection Facilities connect to the Transmission Owner’s \nInterconnection Facilities.”  See 30-Day Compliance Filing at n.14."},{"page":8,"startToken":2575,"endToken":2903,"text":"8 \nof large load.19  The Commission has, to date, rejected PJM’s proposal to define Co-Located Load \nbased on the Point of Change of Ownership because PJM did not seek rehearing or clarification of \nthe Commission’s order in the separate co-located load proceeding in which it adopted that \ndefinition.20  That rejection is inapt here because the services that the Commission is proposing in \nthe Show Cause Order involve different customers (i.e., Co-Located Load customers versus other \ntypes of large load customers), and thus, PJM and the PJM Transmission Owners cannot be limited \nin responding to Show Cause Order based on the Co-Located Load dockets.   \nFurthermore, the PJM Transmission Owners are not asking the Commission to decide at \nthis time in this proceeding whether the point of interconnection or some other criteria should be \nused to define “large loads” or “electrically proximate large loads.”  Nevertheless, the Commission \nshould clarify that the PJM Show Cause Order does not require reference to the point of \ninterconnection, and that PJM and the PJM Transmission Owners may, in a Section 205 filing or \nother response to the Order, propose other criteria, subject of course to showing they are just and \nreasonable.  If the Commission declines to grant this clarification, it should grant rehearing on this \nissue.  The PJM Show Cause Order does not explain why the point of interconnection is the \nappropriate criterion for PJM, as opposed to other metrics such as ownership, delivery \nconfiguration, voltage, or operational effect on the transmission system.  Any determination that a \nlarge load customer or electrically proximate large load customer must be defined based only on \nreference to the point of interconnection is therefore not based on reasoned decision-making and \nis not supported by substantial evidence. \n \n \n19  \nSee 30-Day Compliance Filing at 3 & n.14; see also PJM 60-Day Compliance Filing, Docket No. ER26-\n1479-000, at 32 (filed Feb. 23, 2026). \n20  \nSee PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 195 FERC ¶ 61,030, at P 27."},{"page":9,"startToken":2903,"endToken":2991,"text":"9 \nII. \nCONCLUSION \nFor the foregoing reasons, the PJM Transmission Owners respectfully request that the \nCommission grant rehearing of the PJM Show Cause Order for the reasons set forth herein, or, \nalternatively, clarify the Order as set forth in Section I. \n \nRespectfully submitted, \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n/s/ Michael Kunselman \n \n \n \n \n \n \nMichael Kunselman  \n \n \n \n \n \n \nRichard P. Sparling \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nNicholas J. Cicale \n \n \n \n \n \n \nJonathan A. Namazi \n \n \n \n \n \n \nDavis Wright Tremaine LLP \n \n \n \n \n \n \n1301 K Street NW \n \n \n \n \n \n \nSuite 500 East \n \n \n \n \n \n \nWashington, DC 20005 \n \n \n \n \n \n \nCounsel for the FirstEnergy  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n  Companies \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nOn behalf of the Indicated PJM   \n \n \n \n \n \n \n  Transmission Owners \n \n \n \n \n \n \nDated:  July 20, 2026"},{"page":10,"startToken":2991,"endToken":3070,"text":"CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE \nUnder Rule 2010 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 C.F.R. § \n385.2010 (2025), I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document upon each \nperson designated on the official service list compiled by the Secretary in this proceeding.  \nDated at Washington, D.C., this 20th day of July 2026.  \n \n/s/ Deiman Flores  \nDeiman Flores \nDavis Wright Tremaine LLP  \n1301 K Street NW  \nSuite 500 East  \nWashington, DC 20005"}],"sections":[{"p":1,"at":0,"title":"Opening text","method":"opening text","endPage":4,"endAt":3,"startToken":0,"endToken":1122},{"p":4,"at":3,"title":"I. requests for CLARIFICATION AND rehearing","method":"PDF bookmark","endPage":4,"endAt":49,"startToken":1122,"endToken":1128},{"p":4,"at":49,"title":"A. Statement of Issues and Specification of Errors","method":"PDF bookmark","endPage":5,"endAt":3,"startToken":1128,"endToken":1590},{"p":5,"at":3,"title":"B. Arguments","method":"PDF bookmark","endPage":6,"endAt":1136,"startToken":1590,"endToken":2065},{"p":6,"at":1136,"title":"2. The Commission Should Clarify That “Large Load” and “Electrically Proximate Large Load” Need not be Defined Based on the Point of Interconnection.","method":"PDF bookmark","endPage":9,"endAt":3,"startToken":2065,"endToken":2904},{"p":9,"at":3,"title":"II. Conclusion","method":"PDF bookmark","endPage":9,"endAt":8,"startToken":2904,"endToken":2905},{"p":9,"at":8,"title":"CONCLUSION","method":"printed heading","endPage":10,"endAt":0,"startToken":2905,"endToken":2991},{"p":10,"at":0,"title":"CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE","method":"printed heading","endPage":10,"endAt":475,"startToken":2991,"endToken":3070}]}