FERC approves PJM load registry, rejects curtailment plan

Registry tracks demand, not project readiness

PJM's registry will collect information about large loads, including their locations, projected in-service dates, ramp schedules, peak demand, supply arrangements and backup generation.

The information can help PJM forecast when new demand may connect and how quickly facilities could ramp toward full operation. The forecasts, however, depend on the maturity of the underlying projects.

"A reported 500 MW project is not necessarily 500 MW of executable, energized or persistent operating demand," said Neil Osnato, founder of Persistence Analytics Group.

A project may have commercial agreements and substantial financial commitments while still depending on unfinished generation, transmission or other infrastructure. Osnato separates project development into five stages: requested demand, contractually committed demand, executable infrastructure capability, energized load and sustained operating demand.

Each stage represents a different level of readiness. Treating projected demand as equivalent to executable capacity can distort grid planning and capital allocation, Osnato said.

The registry can improve PJM's visibility into the project pipeline. It does not independently verify that proposed facilities have the infrastructure, financing and equipment needed to connect on schedule or sustain their projected consumption.

FERC rejects PJM's curtailment framework

PJM proposed IRAS to address concerns that large new loads could connect before sufficient generation capacity becomes available. Under the proposal, certain new loads without qualifying new capacity could face curtailment during emergencies.

The filing also included provisions for customers bringing new capacity and for excluding eligible new large loads from part of PJM's capacity-market demand calculation beginning with the 2029/2030 delivery year.

FERC rejected the framework, raising concerns about state jurisdiction over retail customers, the treatment of different customer groups and PJM's justification for the proposal. The commission also questioned whether the framework would impose retail obligations or compensation terms beyond its authority.

The order leaves PJM's existing reliability responsibilities and operational authorities intact. It does, however, prevent the grid operator from implementing the rejected IRAS framework as proposed.

Elizabeth K. Whitney, managing principal at Meguire Whitney, said the ruling highlights the jurisdictional challenge of assigning curtailment obligations through a multistate grid operator's tariff.

Whitney pointed to a potential alternative. FERC accepted the framework in June. It provides conditional, non-firm transmission service to certain large loads while they await the resources or network upgrades required for long-term firm service.

"The functional difference is that conditional transmission service is interrupted when thermal or voltage limits are exceeded, whereas a curtailment mandate is triggered when there is insufficient generation to meet load," Whitney said.

The SPP framework permits service interruptions when transmission conditions require them. Its maximum seven-year term is intended to encourage customers to secure resources or complete network upgrades. Whitney said FERC's show-cause orders pointed to SPP's large-load framework as a model for other grid operators.

PJM must determine whether a revised approach can address the commission's concerns while accounting for its own tariff and jurisdictional constraints.

PJM reviews its next steps

PJM said it is reviewing the order to determine how to meet FERC's requirements while recognizing responsibilities the commission indicated belong to the states.

The grid operator proposed IRAS amid electricity demand growth that is outpacing new generation. PJM argued that existing customers should not bear the resulting costs or reliability risks, tying that position to its Ratepayer Protection Pledge, under which data centers and other large loads committed to help maintain grid reliability and affordability.

"FERC's acceptance of our Large Load Registry and definition of large loads is a step in that direction," said Jeff Shields, a PJM spokesman.

PJM declined to elaborate on its next steps while it reviews the order.

Developers weigh grid access against reliability

Whitney said data center developers should consider on-site generation and battery storage to reduce exposure to grid constraints. Conditional transmission service and curtailment arrangements can make grid supply less predictable for large loads, she said.

On-site power can also provide a facility with greater operating flexibility while retaining access to grid service for reliability support. Developers must weigh those benefits against the cost of building and maintaining generation and storage, as well as the conditions attached to their grid connections.

Whitney also criticized PJM's capacity-market structure, arguing that it has contributed to supply-demand imbalances, higher consumer prices and greater scrutiny from policymakers. Those are her assessments of the market, rather than findings in FERC's order.

PJM now must implement the registry and determine whether to submit a revised resource-adequacy proposal. Meanwhile, grid planners still need to establish which proposed loads are likely to materialize, when supporting infrastructure will be ready and what authority exists to manage demand during a shortage.

The registry will give PJM more information about the projects in its pipeline. Whether those projects can connect and operate as forecast -- and how the grid operator can manage reliability when demand outpaces available resources -- remains unresolved.

Shane Snider is a senior news writer at TechTarget, covering AI infrastructure, hyperscale data centers, cloud platforms, and the power and energy systems driving modern compute expansion. You can reach Shane at [email protected] or on LinkedIn.