EL26-67-001 · 2026-07-20 · Indicated PJM Transmission Owners

The Indicated PJM Transmission Owners submit Request for Clarification, or in the Alternative, Rehearing of the 06/18/2026 Order

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
BEFORE THE 
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 
 
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., et al.   
)  
 
Docket No. EL26-67-000 
 
REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, REHEARING OF 
THE INDICATED PJM TRANSMISSION OWNERS 
 
Pursuant to Section 313 of the Federal Power Act (“FPA”)1 and Rules 212 and 713 of the 
Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“Commission” or 
“FERC”),2 the Indicated PJM Transmission Owners (“PJM Transmission Owners”)3 respectfully 
request clarification, or in the alternative, rehearing of the Commission’s order issued on June 18, 
2026, in this proceeding relating to the appropriate definitions of “large load” and “electrically 
proximate large load.”4   
On June 18, 2026, the Commission issued show cause orders under section 206 of the FPA 
to PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (“PJM”), Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., 
Southwest Power Pool, Inc., California Independent System Operator Corporation, ISO New 
England Inc., and New York Independent System Operator, Inc., together with their transmission 
 
1  
16 U.S.C. § 825l(a). 
2  
18 C.F.R. §§ 385.212 and 385.713 (2025). 
3  
The Indicated PJM Transmission Owners are:  American Electric Power Service Corporation on behalf of its 
affiliates, Appalachian Power Company, Indiana Michigan Power Company, Kentucky Power Company, Kingsport 
Power Company, Ohio Power Company, Wheeling Power Company, AEP Appalachian Transmission Company, Inc., 
AEP Indiana Michigan Transmission Company, Inc., AEP Kentucky Transmission Company, Inc., AEP Ohio 
Transmission Company, Inc., and AEP West Virginia Transmission Company, Inc.; The Dayton Power and Light 
Company d/b/a AES Ohio; Dominion Energy Services, Inc. on behalf of Virginia Electric and Power Company d/b/a 
Dominion Energy Virginia; Duke Energy Business Services, LLC for Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc. and Duke Energy 
Ohio, Inc.; Duquesne Light Company; East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc.; Exelon Corporation on behalf of its 
affiliates Atlantic City Electric Company, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, Commonwealth Edison Company, 
Commonwealth Edison Company of Indiana, Inc., Delmarva Power & Light Company, PECO Energy Company, and 
Potomac Electric Power Company; FirstEnergy Service Company, on behalf of its affiliates American Transmission 
Systems, Incorporated, Jersey Central Power & Light Company, Mid-Atlantic Interstate Transmission LLC, The 
Potomac Edison Company, Monongahela Power Company, Keystone Appalachian Transmission Company, and 
Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Company (collectively, the “FirstEnergy Companies”); PPL Electric Utilities 
Corporation; and Rockland Electric Company. 
4  
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., et al., 195 FERC ¶ 61,211 (2026) (“PJM Show Cause Order” or “Order”).

2 
owners,5 directing each region to justify or reform the tariff provisions governing how large loads 
connect to and receive service from the transmission system.6   
The PJM Show Cause Order preliminarily found that PJM’s existing Open Access 
Transmission Tariff (“PJM Tariff”) appeared to be unjust, unreasonable, or unduly discriminatory 
or preferential because of a lack of sufficiently clear and consistent provisions to address service 
for large loads and related configurations.7  The Commission therefore directed PJM and its 
transmission owners, within 60 days, to show cause why the PJM Tariff remains just and 
reasonable without provisions addressing:  (1) the application process, study procedures, and 
ongoing operational requirements for Eligible Customers8 seeking transmission service on behalf 
of large loads; (2) additional transparency concerning Network Upgrade costs for such service, 
together with the absence of a pro forma cost recovery agreement and a mechanism to ensure 
related payments are properly credited to transmission owners’ revenue requirements; (3) 
transmission service options tailored to flexible large loads willing and able to limit their use of 
the transmission system under certain conditions; and (4) rates, terms, and conditions applicable 
to interconnection customers serving “electrically proximate large load” or co-located load.9  The 
 
5  
Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., et al., 195 FERC ¶ 61,212 (2026), Southwest Power Pool, et al., 
195 FERC ¶ 61,213 (2026), California Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., et al., 195 FERC ¶ 61,214 (2026), ISO New England 
Inc., et al., 195 FERC ¶ 61,215 (2026), New York Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., et al., 195 FERC ¶ 61,216 (2026) 
(collectively, the “Show Cause Orders”). 
6  
The Commission’s June 18, 2026, show cause orders follow the Secretary of Energy’s letter, pursuant to 
section 403 of the Department of Energy Organization Act, directing FERC to initiate a rulemaking proceeding and 
to consider its advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (“ANOPR”) to accelerate large load interconnections.  See 
Letter and ANOPR of Chris Wright, Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Energy (Oct. 23, 2025).  The Commission subsequently 
invited comments on the proposed ANOPR.  See Notice Inviting Comments, Docket No. RM26-4-000 (issued Oct. 
27, 2025). 
7  
PJM Show Cause Order at PP 3, 35. 
8  
All capitalized terms that are not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in the PJM Tariff. 
9  
PJM Show Cause Order at PP 3, 35.

3 
Commission directed PJM either to justify the absence of such provisions or to propose Tariff 
revisions addressing those concerns.10 
The PJM Transmission Owners share the underlying goals driving the Commission’s 
issuance of the Show Cause Orders: namely, to enable new large load customers to efficiently 
interconnect to the transmission system while simultaneously ensuring reliability and protecting 
existing customers.  To that end, the PJM Transmission Owners respectfully seek clarification, or 
in the alternative, rehearing of two preliminary findings in the PJM Show Cause Order:   
1. The Commission should clarify that adopting the definition of “large load” proposed 
in the Show Cause Order, including the 50 MW threshold criteria, does not prevent 
PJM and the PJM Transmission Owners from proposing and supporting additional 
service-specific criteria for large load customers relating to the types of services 
contemplated in the Show Cause Order.  If the Commission declines to make this 
clarification, it should grant rehearing, as a one-size-fits-all approach for all customers 
that meet the definition of “large load” is likely to be over-inclusive and unduly 
discriminatory, and undermine the Commission’s speed-to-power goals for large load 
customers, particularly large computational loads that are crucial to serving AI 
processes. 
2. The Commission should clarify that PJM and the PJM Transmission Owners will be 
permitted to propose and support a definition of “large load” and “electrically 
proximate large load” that are not based on the location of facilities relative to the Point 
of Interconnection,11 e.g., by proposing a definition that relies on the Point of Change 
of Ownership.  If the Commission declines to adopt this clarification, it should grant 
rehearing.  As PJM and the PJM Transmission Owners have explained in the PJM co-
located load proceeding, there are significant problems with adopting such definitions 
based on facilities on the customer-side of the Point of Interconnection, including 
potentially encouraging gaming activities that will undermine the efficient and reliable 
interconnection of large loads.  
 
10  
PJM Show Cause Order at PP 3, 35. 
11  
Id. at P 94 & n.7.

4 
I. 
REQUESTS FOR CLARIFICATION AND REHEARING 
A. 
Statement of Issues and Specification of Errors 
To the extent that the Commission declines to grant clarification as set forth below, the 
PJM Transmission Owners submit the following Statement of Issues and Specification of Errors 
pursuant to Rule 713(c)(1) and 713(c)(2) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure:12 
 To the extent that the definition of “large load” proposed in the PJM Show Cause Order 
is intended to restrict PJM and the PJM Transmission Owners from proposing and 
supporting additional service-specific criteria for large load customers, the PJM Show 
Cause Order is arbitrary and capricious, does not reflect reasoned decision-making, and 
is unsupported by substantial evidence in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act 
because the Commission did not develop a sufficient record to support such a 
restriction, and such a restriction would be unjust, unreasonable, and unduly 
discriminatory.  Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 
29, 43 (1983) (an agency “must examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory 
explanation for its action including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and 
the choice made’”) (citation omitted) (“State Farm”); Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y. v. 
FERC, 45 F.4th 265 (D.C. Cir. 2022); Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y. v. FERC, 347 F.3d 
964, 972 (D.C. Cir. 2003); PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 161 FERC ¶ 61,252 (2017); 
Fla. Gas Transmission Co. v. FERC, 604 F.3d 636, 639 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (quoting Pac. 
Gas & Elec. Co. v. FERC, 373 F.3d 1315, 1319 (D.C. Cir. 2004)) (“Fla. Gas”); PJM 
Interconnection, L.L.C., 119 FERC ¶ 61,318 (2007); Midwest Indep. Transmission Sys. 
Operator, Inc., 117 FERC ¶ 61,113 (2006) (“Midwest ISO”). 
  
 The PJM Show Cause Order is arbitrary and capricious, does not reflect reasoned 
decision-making, and is unsupported by substantial evidence in violation of the 
Administrative Procedure Act because the Commission did not develop a sufficient 
record to support defining “large load” or “electrically proximate large load” by 
reference to the interconnection customer’s point of interconnection.  State Farm, 463 
U.S. at 43 (an agency “must examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory 
explanation for its action including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and 
the choice made’”) (citation omitted); Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y. v. FERC, 45 F.4th 
265; Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y. v. FERC, 347 F.3d at 972; PJM Interconnection, 
L.L.C., 161 FERC ¶ 61,252; Fla. Gas, 604 F.3d at 639 (quoting Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. 
v. FERC, 373 F.3d at 1319); PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 119 FERC ¶ 61,318; 
Midwest ISO, 117 FERC ¶ 61,113. 
 
 
12  
18 C.F.R. § 385.713(c)(1), (c)(2).

5 
B. 
Arguments 
1. 
The Commission Should Clarify That the Proposed Definition of 
“Large Load” in the Show Cause Order Does not Limit PJM and the 
PJM Transmission Owners From Proposing Additional Service-
Specific Criteria for the Services Contemplated in the Order. 
In the PJM Show Cause Order, the Commission preliminarily found that the PJM Tariff 
appears unjust and unreasonable because it lacks certain provisions governing the process to 
provide transmission service to Eligible Customers on behalf of large loads, including a definition 
of large load, as a new category of load.  The Commission further stated that, based on the ANOPR 
record, it would be reasonable to define a large load as a new commercial or industrial customer 
at a single site, behind one or more points of interconnection, with a peak load of 50 MW or greater, 
interconnected at a voltage above 69 kV, and not part of a co-location arrangement.  The 
Commission therefore directed PJM either to show cause why the PJM Tariff remains just and 
reasonable without such a definition or to propose tariff revisions establishing its own definition 
of large load. 
The Commission should clarify that this definition, including the 50 MW threshold, does 
not limit PJM or the PJM Transmission Owners from proposing additional criteria or reasonable 
distinctions between large load customers for purposes of designing and implementing the 
products addressed in the Order.  It may not be appropriate to offer identical services to all large 
load customers.  For instance, considerations such as seasonality versus peak load measurements 
and functional distinctions between types of customers (e.g., hyperscale computational loads 
versus “traditional” manufacturing and commercial customers) may merit distinctions in how 
different products are designed, offered and priced.  The Commission therefore should clarify that 
the proposed large load definition does not prejudge the appropriate criteria for every other purpose 
under the PJM Tariff.

6 
If the Commission declines to adopt this clarification, the Commission should grant 
rehearing.  The PJM Show Cause Order fails to justify a conclusion that the proposed large load 
definition requires that every customer meeting the definition of large load must be offered the 
same services under the same rates, terms and conditions.13  To the contrary, requiring a one-size-
fits all approach for all large load customers with respect to each new service is likely to undermine 
the goals of the Show Cause Order, particularly the desire for speed-to-power. As the PJM 
Transmission Owners explained in their comments on the ANOPR, an overly inclusive definition 
of “large load” risks repeating the same flaws that occurred with inflated generation 
interconnection queues.14  It is therefore of critical importance that PJM and the PJM Transmission 
Owners have sufficient flexibility to design and implement services with appropriate criteria that 
account for meaningful differences between large load customers.  Limiting this flexibility would 
be arbitrary, capricious, and would not reflect reasoned decision-making.   
2. 
The Commission Should Clarify That “Large Load” and “Electrically 
Proximate Large Load” Need not be Defined Based on the Point of 
Interconnection. 
As noted above, the Commission indicated in the PJM Show Cause Order that it would be 
reasonable to define a large load as a new commercial or industrial customer at a single site, behind 
one or more points of interconnection.15  Similarly, in discussing potential rules and procedures 
relating to “electrically proximate large load,” the Commission found that it would be reasonable 
to define “electrically proximate large load” as a large load that is sufficiently electrically close to 
the interconnection customer’s requested point of interconnection such that, with the exception of 
the transmission facilities between the two, the impact on the transmission system of the 
 
13  
PJM Show Cause Order at P 58. 
14  
Indicated PJM Transmission Owners Comments, Docket No. RM26-4-000, at 4-9 (filed Nov. 21, 2025). 
15  
PJM Show Cause Order at n.2.

7 
combination of the generating facility and load will be effectively the same as if they were located 
at the same substation.16 
The Commission should clarify that in any Section 205 filing or other response to the PJM 
Show Cause Order, PJM and/or the PJM Transmission Owners are not limited to defining “large 
load” or “electrically proximate large load” based on reference to the point of interconnection, and 
that they will have sufficient flexibility to propose other points of reference, such as the Point of 
Change of Ownership.  Given the significant detail that the Show Cause Order leaves to PJM and 
the PJM Transmission Owners to develop as to what constitutes electrical proximity and other 
aspects of the Show Cause Order’s proposal, it is crucial that PJM and the PJM Transmission 
Owners have maximum flexibility to ensure speed-to-power, reliability, and customer protection 
goals are met.  Indeed, the Commission has already been presented, in the related co-located load 
proceeding, with evidence that the point of interconnection frequently is an imprecise boundary 
insofar as it may unreasonably conflate customer-owned facilities with those owned by other 
entities, including Transmission Owner-owned facilities.17  In that proceeding, PJM and the PJM 
Transmission Owners provided evidence that the definition of “Co-Located Load” should be based 
on the Point of Change in Ownership,18 rather than the Point of Interconnection because it reflects 
the legal and operational boundary between customer-owned facilities and transmission owner 
facilities and avoids sweeping in transmission owner interconnection facilities into the definition 
 
16  
Id. at P 94. 
17  
See PJM 30-Day Compliance Filing, Docket No. ER26-1088-000, at 3 & n.14 (filed Jan. 20, 2026) (“30-Day 
Compliance Filing”); see also PJM Transmission Owners Request for Rehearing or Clarification, Docket No. ER26-
1088-000, at 4-8 (filed May 18, 2026); PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 195 FERC ¶ 61,030, at PP 27-28 (2026). 
18  
PJM defined “Point of Change in Ownership” in Tariff, Part VIII, Subpart A, section 400, Definitions P, is 
the point at which “the Project Developer’s Interconnection Facilities connect to the Transmission Owner’s 
Interconnection Facilities.”  See 30-Day Compliance Filing at n.14.

8 
of large load.19  The Commission has, to date, rejected PJM’s proposal to define Co-Located Load 
based on the Point of Change of Ownership because PJM did not seek rehearing or clarification of 
the Commission’s order in the separate co-located load proceeding in which it adopted that 
definition.20  That rejection is inapt here because the services that the Commission is proposing in 
the Show Cause Order involve different customers (i.e., Co-Located Load customers versus other 
types of large load customers), and thus, PJM and the PJM Transmission Owners cannot be limited 
in responding to Show Cause Order based on the Co-Located Load dockets.   
Furthermore, the PJM Transmission Owners are not asking the Commission to decide at 
this time in this proceeding whether the point of interconnection or some other criteria should be 
used to define “large loads” or “electrically proximate large loads.”  Nevertheless, the Commission 
should clarify that the PJM Show Cause Order does not require reference to the point of 
interconnection, and that PJM and the PJM Transmission Owners may, in a Section 205 filing or 
other response to the Order, propose other criteria, subject of course to showing they are just and 
reasonable.  If the Commission declines to grant this clarification, it should grant rehearing on this 
issue.  The PJM Show Cause Order does not explain why the point of interconnection is the 
appropriate criterion for PJM, as opposed to other metrics such as ownership, delivery 
configuration, voltage, or operational effect on the transmission system.  Any determination that a 
large load customer or electrically proximate large load customer must be defined based only on 
reference to the point of interconnection is therefore not based on reasoned decision-making and 
is not supported by substantial evidence. 
 
 
19  
See 30-Day Compliance Filing at 3 & n.14; see also PJM 60-Day Compliance Filing, Docket No. ER26-
1479-000, at 32 (filed Feb. 23, 2026). 
20  
See PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 195 FERC ¶ 61,030, at P 27.

9 
II. 
CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, the PJM Transmission Owners respectfully request that the 
Commission grant rehearing of the PJM Show Cause Order for the reasons set forth herein, or, 
alternatively, clarify the Order as set forth in Section I. 
 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Michael Kunselman 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Michael Kunselman  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Richard P. Sparling 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Nicholas J. Cicale 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Jonathan A. Namazi 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1301 K Street NW 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Suite 500 East 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Washington, DC 20005 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Counsel for the FirstEnergy  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Companies 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
On behalf of the Indicated PJM   
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Transmission Owners 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Dated:  July 20, 2026

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
Under Rule 2010 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 C.F.R. § 
385.2010 (2025), I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document upon each 
person designated on the official service list compiled by the Secretary in this proceeding.  
Dated at Washington, D.C., this 20th day of July 2026.  
 
/s/ Deiman Flores  
Deiman Flores 
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP  
1301 K Street NW  
Suite 500 East  
Washington, DC 20005