Docket No. EL26-67-000
I support today’s fleet of show cause orders. We are at an inflection point in the history of American energy infrastructure. The extraordinary and rapid growth of large loads in RTOs and ISOs is faster than the current system can handle. This order charts a course for addressing the potential gaps and shortcomings in PJM’s Tariff that need to be resolved to appropriately respond to this growth, as informed by careful review of the thousands of pages of comments received in response to the advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANOPR).[1] I write separately to underscore my expectation for RTOs and ISOs, including PJM, to timely submit their robust, thoughtful, and region-specific proposals to address the concerns that we have preliminarily identified in their respective tariffs and agreements. By harnessing your region-specific expertise and creativity to bring tailored solutions to the table, together we can efficiently, reliably, and affordably integrate large load, co-located load and generation and/or storage, as well as electrically proximate large load onto the transmission system. I also support the use of alternative transmission technologies to unlock every megawatt of existing capacity from our current transmission system. We have the technology. We should use it now to enable faster interconnection of large loads, lower costs to customers, and help prevent cost shifting.
To that end, and in light of our action in today’s orders, I also ask the state public utility commissions—whether they have already approved large load retail tariffs, are in the process of crafting large load retail tariffs, or have yet to embark on this essential tariff design process—to take a hard look and ensure their large load retail tariff provisions insulate ratepayers from the negative impacts of data center growth. Additionally, I expect PJM to design proposals in response to this show cause order that dovetail with the efforts on the retail side to implement the Ratepayer Protection Pledge, protect customers, and ensure that large loads cover the costs they incur to integrate with the grid.
The stakes here could not be higher and every gambler knows that the secret to surviving is knowing what to throw away and knowing what to keep.[2] Today’s orders do exactly that—adopting thoughtful proposals that position our nation for success, driving meaningful change, and rejecting the gridlock, half-measures, and failure to plan that have gone on for far too long. The data center odyssey that we embarked upon first with PJM, then SPP, we now aggressively extend to all the RTO/ISO regions.[3] Enabling the swift and efficient interconnection of large loads to the transmission system while maintaining affordability, reliability, commitment to open access, competitive principles and cooperative federalism, will only be achieved through consistent, coordinated action and persistence. But without that first step,[4] there is no direction, no forward momentum, no journey, and no way to arrive at our future destination. In the show cause orders we issue today, the Commission takes a series of long strides towards our ultimate large load interconnection destination: we make preliminary findings that the RTO/ISO tariffs, including PJM may be unjust and unreasonable and/or unduly discriminatory or preferential because they lack features necessary to timely, reliably, and safely interconnect and serve new large loads in a way that produces just and reasonable rates.
I commend each commentor for their robust and ongoing responses to the concerns that Secretary Wright and the Commission raised in the ANOPR proceeding. The comments helped us identify the common issues, common solutions, and individual differences among the RTOs/ISOs. We heard a plea for broad flexibility and regionally tailored solutions. And we will strive to work towards those solutions, not through top-down, one-size-fits-all mandates, but through consideration of region-specific proposals. And we endeavor to support an appeal for federal policies that build upon rather than disrupt current and planned developments, reflecting state and local processes and stakeholder efforts. Through these individually tailored and region-specific show cause orders, we are delivering to ensure that our transmission system can accommodate new large loads in a timely, safe, and reliable manner. And, importantly, in a manner that ensures benefits and protection for all customers. Affordability remains a top concern as we proceed forward.
The collective voices in the ANOPR comments have shaped our decision to issue six separate individually tailored and region-specific show cause orders, rather than a proposed final rule at this time. But the success of the next phase of this journey rests with you, PJM, and your stakeholders. We are directing you to expeditiously bring forward for our consideration your novel, region-specific solution(s). Time is of the essence. By inviting you to proceed under FPA section 205, we are giving you significant perks: the benefits of first wielder of the pen and the relatively capacious standard under FPA section 205 that allows us to accept a potentially broad range of proposals provided they are shown to be just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential.[5] We are even giving you flexibility to propose the implementation date for your innovative proposals. But such freedom comes with great and concomitant responsibility.
This is not a time to be cavalier and dodge the urgent need to meet the moment. While this is a long journey, even so, we must continue to move at breakneck pace to win the AI race. So let me be direct. If you choose not to submit timely, reasonable, non-discriminatory or preferential, comprehensive, and substantiated proposal(s), as directed and as required under our applicable statutes, your deficient response will not go unnoticed. I am prepared to play jurisdictional hardball, if needed.[6] This Commission has appropriately exercised considerable restraint in asserting the full scope of our jurisdiction in these orders. However, the Commission has very broad jurisdiction over transmission that we will not hesitate to utilize as necessary to ensure that we meet our objectives in all show cause proceedings, including this PJM proceeding we initiate here. If we find your Tariff is in fact unjust and unreasonable and unduly discriminatory or preferential, any failure on your end to provide a sufficient FPA filing or filings to address the large-load-related concerns that we have identified will result in the Commission dictating the solutions for you. I say this not as a threat, but as a statement of duty. While you may not like our remedies—I have often said that the federal government generally does not come up with the best solutions—this is an outcome we are prepared to pursue given the gravity of the moment and our statutory obligation. Notwithstanding our readiness to step in, it greatly benefits everyone for you to come up with an approach tailored to your region.
I will end my concurrence where I began: We have heard your concerns, and, let me underscore, now is the time for you to heed ours. This is an extraordinarily consequential proceeding. The stakes for reliability, for affordability, and for the American ratepayer could not be higher. We owe it to the public to get this right. I look forward to reviewing and acting as expeditiously as possible on your responses to this show cause order, which I expect will include an FPA section 205 proposal or proposals.
For these reasons, I respectfully concur.
[1] Interconnection of Large Loads to the Interstate Transmission System, Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Docket No. RM26-4-000, (Oct. 23, 2025) (ANOPR); see also Letter from Chris Wright, Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Energy (Oct. 23, 2025) (Secretary’s Letter).
[2] Kenny Rogers, The Gambler (United Artists Records 1978).
[3] Interconnection of Large Loads to the Interstate Transmission System, 195 FERC ¶ 61,045 at P 2 (2026) (Order Regarding Intent to Act) (citing PJM Co-Location Order, 193 FERC ¶ 61,217; SPP HILL Order, 194 FERC ¶ 61,031; Commonwealth Edison Co., 194 FERC ¶ 61,181 (2026); Tri-State Generation and Transmission Ass’n, 193 FERC ¶ 61,070 (2025); Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, 193 FERC ¶ 61,237 (2025)).
[4] Admittedly, we are further down the road in some regions as compared with others.
[5] See, e.g., NRG Power Mktg, LLC v. FERC, 862 FERC 108, 105 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (FERC may not employ a rate design that follows “a completely different strategy” than, or is “methodologically distinct” from, a proposed rate) (internal quotations omitted); Oxy USA, Inc. v. FERC, 64 F.3d 679, 692 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (stating that a proposal under FPA section 205 “need not be the only reasonable methodology, or even the most accurate”); City of Winnfield v. FERC, 744 F.2d 871, at 874-875 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (comparing the respective authorities of the Commission and public utilities under sections 205 and 206).
[6] 16 U.S.C. § 824(b); New York v. FERC, 535 U.S. 17 (2002) (“There is no language in the statute limiting FERC’s transmission jurisdiction to the wholesale market[.]”)) (emphasis in original); id. at 20 (stating that “the FPA authorizes FERC's jurisdiction over interstate transmissions, without regard to whether the transmissions are sold to a reseller or directly to a consumer[.]”).