ER26-3380-000 · 2026-08-21 · Organization of PJM States, Inc.
Comments of the Organization of PJM States, Inc. in support of PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.’s 07/31/2026 filing
Back to sections and commentaryPDF page 1
1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
)
Docket No. ER26-3380-000
COMMENTS OF THE
ORGANIZATION OF PJM STATES, INC.
Pursuant to the Commission’s August 3, 2026, Combined Notice of Filings, the
Organization of PJM States, Inc. (“OPSI”) respectfully files these comments in support of PJM’s
July 31, 2026, filing proposing revisions to the Open Access Transmission Tariff (“Tariff”) and the
Reliability Assurance Agreement Among Load Serving Entities (“RAA”) to establish a Reliability
Backstop Procurement (“RBP”).1 OPSI supports the filing because the proposed revisions
strengthen regional resource adequacy while appropriately recognizing that implementation will
require complementary state action to ensure that RBP costs are allocated to the appropriate retail
loads.2 OPSI encourages the Commission to act expeditiously so that PJM can implement the RBP
without disrupting the schedule for subsequent capacity auctions.
I.
COMMENTS
The unprecedented growth of large loads in the PJM region has created a significant
regional resource adequacy planning challenge under the PJM centralized capacity procurement
construct. The 2028/2029 Base Residual Auction (“BRA”) cleared 6,831 MW short of the PJM
Region Reliability Requirement, demonstrating that the region’s resource adequacy challenge
1 PJM Interconnection LL.C., Reliability Backstop Procurement to Address Resource Adequacy Concerns Stemming
from Large Loads, Docket No. ER26-3380-000 (July 31, 2026) (“Backstop Filing”).
2 The following OPSI members support these comments: the Delaware Public Service Commission, Public Service
Commission of the District of Columbia, Illinois Commerce Commission, Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission,
Kentucky Public Service Commission, Maryland Public Service Commission, Michigan Public Service Commission,
New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, North Carolina Utilities Commission, Public Utilities Commission of Ohio,
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Tennessee Public Utility Commission, and Virginia State Corporation
Commission. The Public Service Commission of West Virginia does not support these comments.
PDF page 2
2
requires immediate action to preserve reliability.3 OPSI supports PJM’s proposal to implement a
supplemental procurement of new capacity equal to the shortfall observed in the BRA for the
2028/2029 Delivery Year to serve large loads.4 PJM explains that the proposal is warranted because
of the likelihood of a third consecutive short auction after shortfalls in the BRA for both the
2027/2028 and 2028/2029 Delivery Years, the rapid growth in data center demand, the direction
provided in the National Energy Dominance Council (“NEDC”) / PJM Governors’ Principles, and
the Commission’s recognition of the need for action.5 OPSI hopes that this targeted intervention
will bolster regional resource adequacy by addressing the present-day capacity shortfall, which
would not have occurred but for large loads, while complementing the ongoing bilateral matching
process.
OPSI agrees with PJM that successful implementation of the RBP will require timely retail
regulatory action that ensures existing retail loads are insulated from or share in the cost of the
RBP only to the extent consistent with state retail ratemaking approvals. Under the Federal Power
Act, the allocation of RBP costs to retail customers remains within the jurisdiction of retail
regulators.6 Accordingly, several states have already begun implementing or considering retail
ratemaking reforms designed to more closely align the costs associated with new large-load
development with those customers.7
PJM proposes to require that capacity used either to offset the RBP procurement target or
to participate in the RBP qualify as “new” capacity.8 Specifically, qualifying offset capacity must
3 Backstop Filing at 7–8.
4 Id. at 7, 25–26.
5 Id. at 27–28.
6 16 U.S.C. § 824(b)(1). Backstop Filing at 13–18, 104–08.
7 See, e.g., Va. Acts ch. 1124, cl. 3 (2026) (S.B. 253), S.B. 253; Md. Code Ann., Pub. Utils. § 4-212; Ind. Code §§ 8-
1-7.9-22 to -24; 2026 N.J. Laws ch. 32, § 1(b)(2)–(3), (d)(3). See also, Interconnection and Tariffs for Large Load
Customers, PA PUC Docket Number: M-2025-3054271 (Final Order entered May 12, 2026).
8 Backstop Filing at 35–36, Attachment B, proposed Tariff, Attachment DD § 18.2(a).
PDF page 3
3
not have previously supported a capacity commitment or been committed in a Fixed Resource
Requirement Plan before commencement of the RBP and must satisfy the additional eligibility
criteria in proposed Tariff, Attachment DD, § 18.2(b). OPSI supports this approach because it helps
ensure that bilateral offsets and RBP procurements result in a genuine increase in regional capacity
rather than simply shifting existing commitments among procurement mechanisms.
Further, OPSI strongly supports the ongoing voluntary, iterative bilateral matching process
through which new large loads may procure new capacity directly, with qualifying bilateral
arrangements reducing the RBP procurement target. This approach allows the costs of new
capacity to be assigned directly to the large loads creating the need for that capacity, reducing the
centralized procurement target and minimizing the risk of cost shifts to existing customers.9 The
bilateral matching process also encourages market behavior where willing buyers contract with
willing sellers before resorting to centralized procurement, supporting the objective of addressing
the region’s resource adequacy shortfall while protecting existing customers.10
Additionally, OPSI recommends that should an electric distribution company (“EDC”) /
load serving entity (“LSE”) confirm before completion of the RBP that a specific amount of load
in the relevant load forecast is no longer expected to materialize, PJM would revise its RBP target
and load forecast. In describing its proposed Qualifying RBP Offset, PJM states that “new” load,
for purposes of the RBP, will be load that has an executed electric service agreement or
transmission service agreement, indicating that the load will be coming online in the 2027/2028
through the 2028/2029 Delivery Year.”11 It follows that if prospective large load withdraws from
or otherwise terminates such agreements during the RBP window, it would not be considered
9 Backstop Filing at 30–31, 39–40.
10 Id. at 30.
11 Id. at 35.
PDF page 4
4
“new” load, and that amount of load would be removed from the RBP target.12 PJM would also
necessarily revise the zonal allocations should certain new large load no longer be expected to
materialize. OPSI views this approach as critical to protecting other customers.
II.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, OPSI respectfully encourages the Commission to accept PJM’s
proposed Tariff and RAA revisions and permit PJM to implement the RBP while continuing to
pursue related reforms necessary to address the challenges posed by large-load growth.
Respectfully Submitted,
Benjamin B. Sloan
Executive Director
Organization of PJM States, Inc.
700 Barksdale Road, Suite 1
Newark, DE 19711
601-214-8481
ben@opsi.us
Ellen B. Egen
Director of Legal and Regulatory Affairs
Organization of PJM States, Inc.
700 Barksdale Road, Suite 1
Newark, DE 19711
336-254-4915
ellen@opsi.us
Dated: August 21, 2026
12 OPSI recognizes that it is reasonable for PJM to require proof that revising the load forecast is appropriate, and
OPSI understands a reasonable timeline for the proof submission would need to be established.
PDF page 5
5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that the foregoing has been served in accordance with 18 C.F.R. §385.2010
upon each person designated on the official service list compiled by the Secretary in this
proceeding.
/s/ Benjamin B. Sloan_____
Benjamin B. Sloan
Executive Director
Organization of PJM States, Inc.
700 Barksdale Road, Suite 1
Newark, DE 19711
Tel: 601-214-8481
Dated at Newark, Delaware this August 21, 2026.