{"document":{"slug":"rehearing-er26-3515-ohio","title":"Request for Rehearing to Promote Transparency for Ohio Consumers","issued":"2026-11-09","accession":"20261109-5209","docket":"ER26-3515-001","group":"PJM Large Load definition, Registry and Interim Resource Adequacy Service","filer":"Ohio Consumers’ Counsel","kind":"request for rehearing","file":"sources/originals/20261109-5209_FIN Reheairng IRAS filing ER26-3515.pdf","url":"https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/filelist?accession_number=20261109-5209","sha256":"20e280a4d362ce7e2167988143fb47ef305a8b4e16ce01e8c81a48b79283b625","pages":21,"tokens":5419,"emptyPages":[]},"pages":[{"page":1,"startToken":0,"endToken":112,"text":"UNITED STATES OF AMERICA\nBEFORE THE\nFEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION\nPJM Interconnection, L.L.C. \n)\nDocket Nos. ER26-3515-000\nREQUEST FOR REHEARING\nTO PROMOTE TRANSPARENCY FOR OHIO CONSUMERS\nBY\nOFFICE OF THE OHIO CONSUMERS’ COUNSEL\nMaureen Willis\nConsumers’ Counsel\nAngela O/Brien\nDeputy Consumers’ Counsel\nOffice of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel\n65 East State Street, Suite 700\nColumbus, Ohio 43215\nTelephone: (614) 466-9531\nangela.obrien@occ.ohio.gov\nDenise C. Goulet, Esq.\nMcCarter & English, LLP\n1301 K Street, N.W., Suite 1000 West\nWashington, D.C. 20005\n(202) 753-3400\ndgoulet@mccarter.com\nSpecial Counsel to the Ohio Office of the\nAttorney General for the\nOffice of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel\nNovember 9, 2026"},{"page":2,"startToken":112,"endToken":240,"text":"TABLE OF CONTENTS \nI.\nINTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1\nII.\nBACKGROUND .................................................................................................................4\nIII.\nSPECIFICATIONS OF ERRORS ON REHEARING ........................................................6\nIV.\nISSUES ON REHEARING .................................................................................................7\nV.\nREQUEST FOR REHEARING ...........................................................................................8\nA.\nFERC’s failure to allow state consumer advocate offices access to the \nLarge Load Registry confidential information fails the test for reasoned \ndecision-making because FERC never addressed OCC’s concerns. .......................8\nB.\nFERC’s exclusion of state consumer advocate offices from the \nconfidential information in the Large Load Registry unduly discriminates \nagainst these statutorily mandated consumer representatives. ...............................13\nC.\nFERC’s ruling is an unlawful unexplained departure from its rulings in the \nRTO show cause proceedings recognizing the need to provide critical \ntransmission planning and cost allocation information to state regulatory \ncommissions and state consumer advocate offices. ...............................................15\nVI.\nCONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF ................................................................17"},{"page":3,"startToken":240,"endToken":470,"text":"1\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA\nBEFORE THE\nFEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION \nPJM Interconnection, L.L.C. \n) \nDocket Nos. ER26-3515-000 \nREQUEST FOR REHEARING\nTO PROMOTE TRANSPARENCY FOR OHIO CONSUMERS\nBY\nOFFICE OF THE OHIO CONSUMERS’ COUNSEL\nI.\nINTRODUCTION \nThe Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (“FERC”) October 9, 2026 Order1 in this \ncase fails to protect consumers in Ohio and elsewhere in PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (“PJM”) \nfrom the risks and costs that will result from acceptance of PJM’s Large Load Registry proposal \nin these dockets. In particular, that order allows PJM to exclude state consumer advocate offices \nfrom the list of entities entitled to access confidential information to be collected and maintained \nin the Large Load Registry.\nThis decision will prevent state agencies directly charged with representing consumers \nfrom being able to access critical information related to large load data centers with “billion-\ndollar implications for consumers.”2 Consumer advocates have a statutory responsibility to \nprotect residential and other utility consumers from unjust and unreasonable rates. That \n1PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 197 FERC ¶ 61,019 (2026) (“October 9 Order”).\n2PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 196 FERC ¶ 61,245 (2026), Chairman Laura V. Swett concurring at P 2 (order \naccepting in part and rejecting in part PJM’s companion filing to establish a Reliability Backstop Procurement \nauction to secured sufficient generating capacity needed to serve forecasted load associated with large data centers)."},{"page":4,"startToken":470,"endToken":709,"text":"2\nresponsibility differs from the responsibility of state regulatory commissions that generally \nbalance the interests of consumers against the interests of other participants, including utilities \nand data centers. Responsibility for advocating for consumer interests cannot be meaningfully \ndischarged without access to information concerning the magnitude, location, and anticipated \ngrowth of large load.  Such information is essential to evaluating whether transmission \ninvestments, resource adequacy costs, and other infrastructure expenses driven by large load \ncustomers are being improperly shifted to consumers who neither caused nor benefit \nproportionally from those costs.\nThe Order provides no reasoned decision for excluding state consumer advocate offices \nfrom access to this critical information, or for treating these offices in an unduly discriminatory \nmanner as compared to similar entities such as state regulatory commissions that are allowed \naccess to this critical information.  The Commission’s exclusion of consumer advocates creates \nan unjustified informational imbalance.  It allows utilities and other market participants access to \ninformation critical to planning and cost allocation while denying that same information to those \ncharged with representing consumers’ interests.  Legitimate confidentiality and security concerns \ncan be addressed through protective measures rather than categorical exclusion.\nThe Commission’s exclusion of consumer advocates from the Large Load Registry \nconflicts with its express recognition in the PJM and Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Show Cause \nproceedings in Docket Nos. EL26-67-000 and EL26-68-000 of their important role in protecting \nconsumers from unjust and unreasonable rates, including costs associated with large load"},{"page":5,"startToken":709,"endToken":1088,"text":"3\ngrowth.3  Denying advocates access to critical planning information undermines their ability to \nevaluate whether large-load costs are improperly shifted to those they represent -- consumers.\nUnder Section 313 of the Federal Power Act (“FPA”), 16 U.S.C. § 825l, and Rule 713 of \nthe FERC’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 C.F.R. § 385.713, the Office of the Ohio \nConsumers’ Counsel (“OCC”) requests rehearing of the October 9 Order. OCC is the statutory \nrepresentative of millions of Ohio residential utility consumers, per Ohio R.C. Chapter 4911. \nOCC actively advocates for Ohioans in numerous state and federal regulatory proceedings, \nincluding proceedings before FERC. OCC timely intervened in this case on September 3, 2026,4\nand submitted a Protest of the filing that same day.5\nOhio residential consumers are adversely affected by FERC’s October 9 Order in this \ncase because they are at risk of paying the costs for the capacity to be acquired by the Reliability \nBackstop Procurement (“RBP”) auction authorized in a companion docket.6 Ohio consumers are \nalso at risk of being curtailed  because of the significant new loads brought by these large load \ndata centers.  Ohio residential consumers did not cause the need for the RBP auction, nor did \nthey cause the need for the curtailments that could result from interconnecting these large load \ndata centers to the grid.  Still, under the RBP order, they will pay the related capacity costs (and \n3PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 195 FERC ¶ 61,211 at PP 66, 71 (2026) (finding that greater transparency is needed \nrelated to transmission planning and cost allocations related to large load data centers, and encouraging state \nregulatory commissions and state consumer advocates to identify whether additional, more granular transmission \ncost information is needed to inform proper state-jurisdictional cost allocation); see also Sw. Power Pool, Inc., 195 \nFERC ¶ 61,213 at P 51 (2026).\n4Doc-less Motion to Intervene in PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Docket No. ER26-3515-000, filed by Office of the \nOhio Consumers’ Counsel, available on FERC’s e-library website as Accession Document No. 20260903-5029.\n5Protest by Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel (Aug. 21, 2026), Docket No. ER26-3515-000, available on \nFERC’s e-Library website as Accessions Document No. 20260903-5189 (“OCC Protest”).\n6PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 196 FERC ¶ 61,245 (2026)."},{"page":6,"startToken":1088,"endToken":1382,"text":"4\nlikely other unknown costs).  And under the October 9 Order at issue here, they may suffer \nrelated curtailments due to resource inadequacy.\nYet under the October 9 Order, consumers’ statutory representatives, like OCC, will not \nhave access to the confidential information they need to fully represent their interests, and to \nunderstand and challenge the costs these large load data centers may shift onto them.  The FERC \nOrder fails consumers who deserve full transparency when it comes to rates they are paying for \nthe extraordinary load associated with data center deployment.\nII.\nBACKGROUND \nPJM proposed in this case to implement an Interim Resource Adequacy Service \n(“IRAS”), effective with the June 1, 2027 Reliability Pricing Model (“RPM”) Delivery Year.  \nThat proposed service would interrupt, or curtail service to New Large Loads that fail to bring \nsufficient capacity to satisfy their capacity obligations.7 PJM represented in the filing that it \n“hosts the largest concentration of data center load in the world,”8 and its load forecast “predicts \npeak load growth of 32 gigawatts [(“GW”)] from 2024 to 2030, 30 GW of which is projected to \nbe from data centers.”9 PJM explained that the 2027/2028 RPM base residual auction cleared \nover 6,600 MW short of the region’s reliability requirement, and that the 2028/2029 RPM \ncapacity auction cleared over 6,800 MW short of that requirement.10 In other words, PJM \nrepresented that the addition of new supply has not kept pace with rapid large load demand \n7PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Docket No. ER26-3515-000, Proposal of PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. to Establish \nInterim Resource Adequacy Service and A Large Load Registry to Address  System Reliability at 7, 22 (Aug. 13, \n2026) (“IRAS Transmittal Letter”).\n8Id. at 13.\n9Id.\n10Id. at 14."},{"page":7,"startToken":1382,"endToken":1663,"text":"5\ngrowth, thus giving rise to the significant tightening of the capacity market in recent years and \nsubsequent resource adequacy shortfalls.11  (This in turn has caused upward pressure on capacity \nand energy prices.  According to PJM’s Independent Market Monitor, data center growth has \ndriven $29 billion in additional capacity costs over the last four Base Residual Auctions,12\nunderscoring the substantial financial consequences for consumers and the critical need for \nconsumer advocates to access large-load planning information.)\nPJM proposed the IRAS mechanism as one element of a larger process to protect \nconsumers not causing the need for new capacity from possible curtailments associated with the \nresource adequacy shortfall.  The IRAS program included a proposal to establish a Large Load \nRegistry that would incorporate information on all Large Loads in the region, including \ninformation that identifies the entities, their peak loads, their locations and Electric Distributor \nzones, their in-service dates, peak load shaving capability, if any, ramp rates, back-up generation \nif any, and other related information.13PJM proposed to define Large Load as “end-use \ncustomer(s) load that has a cumulative peak load of 50 megawatts or greater at a single electrical \nsite behind one or more points of interconnection . . . .”14 PJM further proposed that for \nconfigurations involving multiple affiliated load facilities or multiple points of interconnection \nwith affiliated load facilities behind them, “all affiliated load facilities within a one-mile radius \nwill be considered a single electrical site as further described in the PJM Manuals.”15 PJM \n11Id. at 13.\n12Monitoring Analytics, LLC, Analysis of the 2028/2029 RPM Base Residual Auction- Part A, at Table 1 (Oct. 30, \n2026), IMM Report.\n13Id. at 28-29, and 37.\n14Id. at 31.\n15Id."},{"page":8,"startToken":1663,"endToken":1902,"text":"6\nrepresented that it will provide access to that information on a confidential basis to authorized \nstate commissions, Transmission Owners, the Independent Market Monitor for PJM, Electric \nDistributors, FERC and Load Serving Entities.16  PJM further represented that the purpose of the \nRegistry is to provide transparency and “key information” for state and retail entities.17\nThe Large Load Registry will contain substantially more detailed information than the \naggregated data made publicly available.  Aggregated data cannot substitute for access to the \nunderlying information needed to independently evaluate load forecasts, infrastructure costs, and \nthe risk of shifting costs attributable to large-load customers onto other customers, including \nresidential consumers.  But under PJM’s proposal, independent state consumer advocates are \nnot permitted access to the confidential registry.\nThe October 9 Order accepts PJM’s Large Load Registry proposal, including the \ndefinition of Large Loads and the provision that excludes state consumer advocate offices from \naccess to the confidential information collected and maintained in the Registry.18 The October 9 \nOrder rejected all other elements of the IRAS proposal.19\nIII.\nSPECIFICATIONS OF ERRORS ON REHEARING \n1. \nFERC erred by acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner in approving PJM’s \nLarge Load Registry proposal without ensuring that state consumer advocate offices have access \nto the confidential information that will be collected and maintained in that Registry.  FERC \n16Id. at 28.\n17Id. at 29, 37-38.\n18October 9 Order at PP 27, 48-49.\n19Id. at P 52."},{"page":9,"startToken":1902,"endToken":2189,"text":"7\nnever explains why state consumer advocate offices should be excluded from access to this \ninformation despite the demonstrated need for such access.\n2. \nFERC also acted arbitrarily in failing to address OCC’s concern that excluding \nstate consumer advocate offices from the confidential information in the Large Load Registry is  \nunduly discriminatory since others with a similar need for that information are granted such \naccess.  \n3. \nFERC’s ruling excluding state consumer advocate offices from the confidential \ninformation in the Large Load Registry is inconsistent with its recent decisions in the Show \nCause proceedings initiated for Regional Transmission Organizations (“RTOs”) like PJM and \nSouthwest Power Pool, Inc., that require greater transparency for state regulatory commissions \nand state consumer advocate offices with respect to the effects of large load customers on \ntransmission planning, transmission cost allocation, and the need for transmission Network \nUpgrades.\nIV.\nISSUES ON REHEARING \n1. \nWhether FERC’s failure to allow state consumer advocate offices to be included \nin the subset of entities that will be allowed to access the Large Load Registry confidential \ninformation is arbitrary and capricious, without reasoned decision, in violation of the \nAdministrative Procedure Act’s “arbitrary and capricious” standard, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), \nSithe/Indep. Power Partners, L.P. v. FERC, 165 F.3d 944, 948 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (“Sithe/Indep. \nPower Partners”); FERC v. Elec. Power Supply Ass’n, 136 S. Ct. 760, 782 (2016) (“EPSA”) \n(quoting Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)); \nand Neighborhood TV Co. v. FCC, 742 F.2d 629, 639 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (“Neighborhood TV Co.”) \n(the court must be able to “discern a reasoned path from the facts and considerations before the"},{"page":10,"startToken":2189,"endToken":2497,"text":"8\n[agency] to the decision it reached”) because it did not address the concerns raised by OCC (and \nothers) related to the need for access to that information?\n2. \nWhether FERC’s ruling excluding state consumer advocate offices from the \nconfidential information in the Large Load Registry unduly discriminates against state consumer \nadvocate offices as compared to other entities entitled to access that information, contrary to the \nstatutory requirements in Federal Power Act sections 205 and 206, 16 U.S.C. §§ 824d and 824e, \nprohibiting undue discrimination?\n3. \nWhether FERC’s ruling excluding state consumer advocate offices from the \nconfidential information in the Large Load Registry is inconsistent with its rulings in the Show \nCause proceedings initiated against PJM, Southwest Power Pool and other RTOs in Docket Nos. \nEL26-67-000, EL26-68-000, EL26-69-000, EL26-70-000, EL26-71-000 and EL26-72-000 \n(collectively “Show Cause” proceedings) that require greater transparency related to large load \ndata center information for certain stakeholders, including state consumer advocate offices, \ncontrary to Williams Gas Processing-Gulf Coast Co. v. FERC, 475 F.3d 319, 326 (D.C. Cir. \n2006) (“Williams Gas Processing”) (citing Brusco Tug & Barge Co. v. NLRB, 247 F.3d 273, 278 \n(D.C. Cir. 2001) (“[I]t is ‘axiomatic that [agency action] must either be consistent with prior \n[action] or offer a reasoned basis for its departure from precedent’”)?\nV.\nREQUEST FOR REHEARING \nA.\nFERC’s failure to allow state consumer advocate offices access to the Large \nLoad Registry confidential information fails the test for reasoned decision-\nmaking because FERC never addressed OCC’s concerns. \nOCC seeks rehearing of FERC’s failure to direct PJM to allow state consumer advocates \naccess to the Large Load Registry confidential information. FERC’s Order relies on PJM’s \nexplanation that “the Large Load Registry will be available only to entities that already have \naccess to this sort of information and consistent with existing confidentiality rules, i.e., PJM"},{"page":11,"startToken":2497,"endToken":2766,"text":"9\nproposes to follow its existing, Commission-approved rules, rules that currently do not allow \nstate consumer advocates or similar entities to have access to this type of information.”20 These \nstatements are not a reasoned explanation for rejecting OCC’s arguments.\nOCC demonstrated in its Protest that PJM’s reasoning for providing access to the \nconfidential information in the Large Load Registry for state regulatory commissions is the same \nas the reason OCC and other state consumer advocate offices need access to that information.  \nPJM argued that “[s]tates may leverage the Large Load Registry to inform the implementation of \nretail constructs including load reduction priorities and cost allocation at the retail level to \nappropriate end-use customers.”21 PJM further explained that “[t]he Large Load Registry will \nassist states in administering their respective programs at the retail level while allowing each \nstate to retain the flexibility to administer those programs, including the flexibility to determine \nwhen and whether Large Loads and Existing Large Loads have demonstrated that their loads are \nmatched with new capacity that they have procured to serve their needs.”22  In accepting PJM’s \nclaims, FERC accepted these reasons for including state regulatory commissions, Electric \nDistributors and Load Serving Entities in the group of those provided access to the confidential \ninformation.\nThe October 9 Order recounts PJM’s argument that the confidential information in the \nRegistry must be available only to “‘as small a universe of entities as possible,’ while still \nmaking sure it is available to those who require access to implement their responsibilities, as well \n20October 9 Order at P 49.\n21IRAS Transmittal Letter at 29.\n22Id."},{"page":12,"startToken":2766,"endToken":3054,"text":"10\nas operational and planning needs.”23 FERC found that “PJM’s proposal includes reasonable \nsafeguards for confidential information.”24 But the Order does not explain why the list of entities \nable to access the confidential information should exclude state consumer advocate offices. This \nis especially concerning given that statutorily mandated state consumer advocate offices also \nrequire access to this information to implement their responsibilities to represent consumers – 67 \nmillion in the PJM region who pay the ultimate bill for capacity and energy.\nAs OCC explained in its Protest, state consumer advocate offices such as OCC, are \nstatutorily mandated to protect the interests of retail consumers in their respective states.25 OCC \ndemonstrated that “just as authorized state commissions need to access confidential Registry \ninformation to assess the impact of Large Loads in their states and to ensure just and reasonable \ncost and curtailment allocations for their retail customers, state consumer advocates need access \nto that information.”26 FERC never addresses this concern.  It simply ignores it.\nSimply repeating PJM’s reasoning that some limit needs to be placed on who can access \nconfidential information does not explain why state consumer advocate offices should be \nexcluded from access when they have the same need for that information as do others included \non the list. OCC’s request for access to the confidential information does not extend to a broad \narray of entities or to the public at large. It extends only to the statutorily-created state consumer \nadvocate offices, each of whom has significant expertise and experience in maintaining the \nconfidentiality of materials received under regulatory tariffs or orders.  Expanding the list of \n23October 9 Order at P 42, citing the IRAS Transmittal Letter at 11.\n24Id.\n25OCC Protest at 22.\n26Id."},{"page":13,"startToken":3054,"endToken":3350,"text":"11\nthose entitled to access the Large Load Registry confidential information to include only one \nadditional type of entity, i.e., state consumer advocate offices with statutorily-mandated \nobligations to protect retail consumers, is not the unlimited disclosure PJM feared in establishing \nthe limited access requirement. FERC never explained why state consumer advocate offices \nshould be excluded from the access group.  In fact, transparency of large load data center \nlocations, projected loads and needs for network upgrades is most important for the 67 million \nconsumers in PJM who are paying the bills created by the policies adopted by FERC.\nAs OCC explained in its Protest, state consumer advocates have no other means to obtain \nthe confidential Large Load Registry information.27 They will find their efforts to obtain that \ninformation in state proceedings stymied by the confidentiality provisions in the Large Load \nRegistry tariff.28 Without a federal rule providing for Registry access, state consumer advocates \nwill be denied access to this essential information in the state proceedings, and their ability to \nadvocate for their statutorily-mandated constituency stymied.29\nFERC precedent supports granting access to confidential information to those willing to \nsign a protective agreement and to keep that information confidential.30  In West Deptford \nEnergy, LLC, FERC stated that “[i]n crafting a protective order the goal is to issue the least \nrestrictive order that will accomplish the purpose of protecting against the harm of disclosure.”31\nIn rejecting West Deptford’s effort to restrict access to its confidential information to only the \n27Id.\n28Id.\n29Id.\n30See, e.g., West Deptford Energy, LLC, 134 FERC ¶ 61,189 at P 27 (2011) (“West Deptford”);  see also Duke \nEnergy Carolinas, LLC et al., 127 FERC ¶ 61,281 at P (2009) (“Duke Energy”).\n31West Deptford at P 28 (emphasis added)."},{"page":14,"startToken":3350,"endToken":3624,"text":"12\nCommission, PJM and the Independent Market Monitor for PJM, FERC stated that the company \nhad not shown why the normal procedure of requiring a protective agreement was not “an \nappropriate balancing of” the competing concerns of need for access to the information and need \nfor protection from broad disclosure of confidential information.32  FERC further found that “a \nparty claiming that confidential material should be withheld entirely will be expected to show \nthat a protective order will not adequately safeguard its interests and that this concern outweighs \nthe need for the material to develop the record.”33\nIn the instant case, PJM never explained why a protective order signed by state consumer \nadvocate offices would not adequately safeguard its interest in maintaining the confidentiality of \nthe large load data centers. And FERC never balanced the competing concerns of the state \nconsumer advocate offices need for that information and the need to protect that information \nfrom broad disclosure. \nWhile West Deptford involved an adjudicatory proceeding, the requirement for an \nappropriate balancing of interests is no less important here, where PJM could amend the \nconfidentiality provisions of its Tariff to include state consumer advocate offices to allow access \nto the Large Load Registry.  Neither PJM nor FERC reasonably explain why state consumer \nadvocate offices should be excluded from the list of those with access to the Large Load \nRegistry. Consumer Advocates need access to ensure that rates charged to consumers for Large \nLoad interconnections and any curtailments treat consumers in a just and reasonable manner. \n32Id. at P 27, citing Mojave Pipeline Co., 38 FERC ¶ 61,249 (1987).\n33Id. at 61,842 (emphasis in original)."},{"page":15,"startToken":3624,"endToken":3949,"text":"13\nFERC’s failure to address this issue is contrary to judicial requirements that FERC consider \nimportant aspects of the problem.34\nB.\nFERC’s exclusion of state consumer advocate offices from the confidential \ninformation in the Large Load Registry unduly discriminates against these \nstatutorily mandated consumer representatives. \nIn Duke Energy, FERC found that it is unreasonable to limit access to confidential \ninformation and Critical Energy Infrastructure Information (“CEII”) in the transmission planning \nprocess only to certain entities that obtained authorization from the Commission to access CEII \ncontained in Form 715 reports.35  FERC stated that “these limitations unreasonably restrict the \nability of affected stakeholders to participate fully in transmission planning meetings and that \ntransmission providers may develop mechanisms, such as confidentiality agreements and \npassword-protected access to information, in order to manage confidentiality and CEII \nconcerns.”36\nNotably, the confidentiality concerns in Duke Energy did not involve an adjudicatory \nproceeding, but rather involved access to confidential information in a transmission planning \nprocess. That process is not unlike the situation here, where state consumer advocate offices need \naccess to confidential information that will affect generation and transmission planning, rates and \ncurtailments for retail consumers, including the 67 million consumers who ultimately pay the \nrates under discussion.\n34 Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. at 43 (FERC’s orders are arbitrary and \ncapricious if it “relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an \nimportant aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the \nagency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency \nexpertise.”); see also Friends of Buckingham v. State Air Pollution Control Bd., 947 F.3d 68, 80 (4th Cir. 2020); \nAppalachian Voices v. State Water Control Bd., 912 F.3d 746, 753 (4th Cir. 2019). \n35Duke Energy at P 22.\n36Id."},{"page":16,"startToken":3949,"endToken":4314,"text":"14\nThat lack of transparency for consumers is egregious, unjust and unreasonable. By \nexcluding authorized state consumer advocates from the Registry, PJM’s proposal unduly \ndiscriminates against consumer representatives in violation of sections 205 and 206 of the \nFederal Power Act (“FPA”), 16 U.S.C. §§ 824d and 824e, and in violation of long-held judicial \nprecedent prohibiting such undue discrimination.37\nIn Cal. Independent Sys. Operator, Inc, FERC found that the FPA does not prohibit all \ndiscrimination, only “undue discrimination.”38 FERC stated that “[d]iscrimination is undue when \nsimilarly situated customers are treated differently.”39 In Calpine Corp., FERC found that \n“[w]hether a rate or practice is unduly discriminatory depends on whether it provides different \ntreatment to different classes of entities and turns on whether those classes of entities are \nsimilarly situated.”40 FERC explained that “[d]ifferential treatment does not necessarily amount \nto undue preference where the difference in treatment can be explained by some factor deemed \nacceptable to regulators (and the courts),”41\nHere, neither PJM nor FERC provides a reasoned explanation for excluding OCC and \nother PJM state consumer advocates from access to the confidential information in the Large \nLoad Registry where their need for such information is identical to the reasons state regulatory \n37 See, e.g., Cal. Independent System Operator, Inc., 193 FERC ¶ 61,117 at P 33 (2025) (“CAISO”); see also New \nEngland Power Gen. Ass’n. v. FERC, 881 F.3d 202, 211 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (citing BP Energy Co. v. FERC, 828 F.3d \n959, 968 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (“vacating finding of no undue discrimination where Commission identified differences \nbetween two natural-gas companies but failed to adequately explain why they provide a rational basis for the \ndifference in treatment”)).\n38CAISO at P 33, citing Calpine Corp. v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 171 FERC ¶ 61,035, at P 318 (2020) (“As the \nCommission has previously explained, the FPA forbids ‘undue’ preferences, advantages, and prejudices.”). \n(“Calpine Corp.”)\n39Id.\n40Calpine Corp. at P 318, citing Town of Norwood v. FERC, 202 F.3d 392, 402 (1st Cir. 2000)\n41Id. (emphasis in original); see also Cities of Newark v. FERC, 763 F.2d 533, 546 (3d Cir. 1985)"},{"page":17,"startToken":4314,"endToken":4684,"text":"15\ncommissions were given access to that information.  The regulations imposing confidentiality \nobligations on the state regulatory commissions could be extended to state consumer advocate \noffices as well.\nC.\nFERC’s ruling is an unlawful unexplained departure from its rulings in the \nRTO show cause proceedings recognizing the need to provide critical \ntransmission planning and cost allocation information to state regulatory \ncommissions and state consumer advocate offices. \nAs noted previously, FERC recently issued Show Cause orders against the six RTOs in \nthe nation. These orders find that the existing tariffs of these RTOs are unjust and unreasonable \nbecause they provide insufficient transparency for state regulatory commissions and state \nconsumer advocate offices regarding the effects of large load data centers on transmission \nplanning and allocation of transmission costs.42\nFERC specifically noted in PJM’s Show Cause Order that “the lack of centralized \ninformation on the associated transmission costs in PJM hamper the ability of the Commission \nand stakeholders (including transmission customers and state regulators) to understand and \naccurately assess the relationship between the addition of large loads to the transmission system \nand wholesale transmission costs.”43 Citing the “speculative nature” of requests for transmission \nservice for large data center loads, FERC found that “[t]he speed and scale with which Eligible \nCustomers are seeking transmission service on behalf of large loads makes it difficult for \ninterested parties, including transmission customers and state regulators, to accurately assess \n42See, e.g., PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 195 FERC ¶ 61,211 at P 73 (“The speed and scale with which Eligible \nCustomers are seeking transmission service on behalf of large loads makes it difficult for interested parties, \nincluding transmission customers and state regulators, to accurately assess which transmission costs are driven by \nrequests for transmission service by Eligible Customers to serve large loads.”); see also Sw. Power Pool, Inc., 195 \nFERC ¶ 61,213 at P 51 (finding that additional transparency obligations are necessary to “give state public utility \ncommissions and other state regulators the information necessary to allow them to understand which transmission \ncosts are caused by which transmission customers, so that they can sub-allocate these costs to the appropriate retail \ncustomers.” \n43 PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 195 FERC ¶61,211 at P 73."},{"page":18,"startToken":4684,"endToken":4966,"text":"16\nwhich transmission costs are driven by requests for transmission service by Eligible Customers \nto serve large loads.”44  FERC citied to comments from stakeholders that “the opaque nature of \nrequests for transmission service by Eligible Customers on behalf of large loads, and the \nassociated Network Upgrades required to provide that transmission service, prevent wholesale \nand retail customers, states, and other stakeholders from understanding such costs.”45  FERC \nthen found PJM’s existing tariff unjust and unreasonable because it did not provide sufficient \ntransparency on these matters.46\nFERC is still in the process of assessing specific proposals related to the concerns raised \nin the Show Cause orders.  However, the important point here is that the Show Cause orders \nexplicitly recognized the need of state consumer advocate offices, as well as state regulatory \ncommissions, to have greater insight into large load data center impacts on transmission \nplanning, the need for new transmission network upgrades, and the allocation of costs associated \nwith those demands.  The same is true of the state consumer advocate offices need to access the \nconfidential information in the Large Load Registry.\nThe October 9 Order is an unwarranted departure from FERC’s rulings in the RTO Show \nCause orders, contrary to Williams Gas Processing, 475 F.3d at 326 (“[I]t is ‘axiomatic that \n[agency action] must either be consistent with prior [action] or offer a reasoned basis for its \ndeparture from precedent’”).  In the Show Cause orders, FERC found that state consumer \nadvocate offices, like state regulatory commissions, need access to critical information related to \nlarge load data centers in order to effectively represent consumer interests in planning and cost \n44Id. \n45Id. at P 74. \n46 Id. at PP 75-76."},{"page":19,"startToken":4966,"endToken":5252,"text":"17\nallocation proceedings. The fact that some of the information in the Large Load Registry is \nconfidential is of no import for purposes of determining whether state consumer advocate \noffices, like state regulatory commissions, should be able to access the information they need to \ninform their advocacy for consumers. FERC never explained why non-disclosure agreements \nwould work for state regulatory commissions but not for state consumer advocate offices to \nprotect the confidentiality of the Large Load Registry information.\nFERC has recognized the importance of sufficient transparency regarding Large Loads, \nstating that “without sufficient transparency . . . stakeholders may lack information and visibility \nregarding the costs driven by large load additions.”47 State consumer advocate offices have \nneeds for the confidential information similar to those identified for state regulatory \ncommissions.  And state consumer advocates are just as capable of maintaining the \nconfidentiality of that information under regulatory rules and orders.  FERC should reverse its \nruling on this issue, and direct PJM to extend access to the Large Load Registry confidential \ninformation to state consumer advocate offices, subject to confidentiality obligations.\nVI.\nCONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF \nWHEREFORE, OCC respectfully requests that FERC reconsider its ruling in the October \n9 Order.  FERC should afford consumers in Ohio and elsewhere in PJM the full protections of \njust, reasonable, and not unduly discriminatory and preferential rates.  FERC should reject PJM’s \nLarge Load Registry proposal with directions to refile the proposal with a provision that includes \nstate consumer advocate offices in the list of entities entitled to access the confidential \ninformation that will be collected, maintained and made available in that Registry.\n47 IRAS Application at 48, citing PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., et al., 195 FERC ¶ 61,211 at P 74 (2026)."},{"page":20,"startToken":5252,"endToken":5342,"text":"18\nRespectfully submitted,\nMaureen Willis\nOhio Consumers’ Counsel\n/s/ Angela O’Brien\nAngela O’Brien\nDeputy Consumers’ Counsel\nOffice of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel\n65 East State Street, Suite 700\nColumbus, Ohio 43215\nTelephone: (614) 466-9531\nangela.obrien@occ.ohio.gov\n/s/ Denise C. Goulet\nDenise C. Goulet, Esq.\nMcCarter & English, LLP\n1301 K Street, N.W., Suite 1000 West\nWashington, D.C. 20005\n(202) 753-3400\ndgoulet@mccarter.com\nSpecial Counsel for The Office of\nAttorney General of Ohio on Behalf of\nthe Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel\nNovember 9, 2026"},{"page":21,"startToken":5342,"endToken":5419,"text":"CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\nI hereby certify that I have on this date served a copy of the foregoing document via \nelectronic mail upon all parties of record on the Commission’s official service list in this \nproceeding. Dated in Washington, D.C., on this 9th day of November, 2026.\n/s/ Denise C. Goulet\nDenise C. Goulet, Esq.\nMcCarter & English, LLP\n1301 K Street, N.W., Suite 1000 West\nWashington, D.C. 20005\n(202) 753-3400 – Telephone\ndgoulet@mccarter.com"}],"sections":[{"p":1,"at":0,"title":"Opening text","method":"opening text","endPage":2,"endAt":0,"startToken":0,"endToken":112},{"p":2,"at":0,"title":"TABLE OF CONTENTS","method":"printed heading","endPage":2,"endAt":620,"startToken":112,"endToken":138},{"p":2,"at":620,"title":"A. FERC’s failure to allow state consumer advocate offices access to the","method":"printed heading","endPage":2,"endAt":854,"startToken":138,"endToken":168},{"p":2,"at":854,"title":"B. FERC’s exclusion of state consumer advocate offices from the","method":"printed heading","endPage":2,"endAt":1088,"startToken":168,"endToken":194},{"p":2,"at":1088,"title":"C. FERC’s ruling is an unlawful unexplained departure from its rulings in the","method":"printed heading","endPage":3,"endAt":241,"startToken":194,"endToken":275},{"p":3,"at":241,"title":"I. INTRODUCTION","method":"printed heading","endPage":3,"endAt":244,"startToken":275,"endToken":276},{"p":3,"at":244,"title":"INTRODUCTION","method":"printed heading","endPage":6,"endAt":586,"startToken":276,"endToken":1179},{"p":6,"at":586,"title":"II. BACKGROUND","method":"printed heading","endPage":6,"endAt":590,"startToken":1179,"endToken":1180},{"p":6,"at":590,"title":"BACKGROUND","method":"printed heading","endPage":8,"endAt":1232,"startToken":1180,"endToken":1837},{"p":8,"at":1232,"title":"III. SPECIFICATIONS OF ERRORS ON REHEARING","method":"printed heading","endPage":9,"endAt":996,"startToken":1837,"endToken":2043},{"p":9,"at":996,"title":"IV. ISSUES ON REHEARING","method":"printed heading","endPage":10,"endAt":1458,"startToken":2043,"endToken":2406},{"p":10,"at":1458,"title":"V. REQUEST FOR REHEARING","method":"printed heading","endPage":10,"endAt":1484,"startToken":2406,"endToken":2410},{"p":10,"at":1484,"title":"A. FERC’s failure to allow state consumer advocate offices access to the Large","method":"printed heading","endPage":15,"endAt":133,"startToken":2410,"endToken":3645},{"p":15,"at":133,"title":"B. FERC’s exclusion of state consumer advocate offices from the confidential","method":"printed heading","endPage":17,"endAt":208,"startToken":3645,"endToken":4342},{"p":17,"at":208,"title":"C. FERC’s ruling is an unlawful unexplained departure from its rulings in the","method":"printed heading","endPage":19,"endAt":1267,"startToken":4342,"endToken":5143},{"p":19,"at":1267,"title":"VI. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF","method":"printed heading","endPage":21,"endAt":0,"startToken":5143,"endToken":5342},{"p":21,"at":0,"title":"CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE","method":"printed heading","endPage":21,"endAt":453,"startToken":5342,"endToken":5419}]}