On February 20, 2025, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) issued a highly anticipated order under Section 206 of the Federal Power Act addressing concerns related to large loads co-located at generating facilities within the PJM Interconnection. The growing interest in co-location arrangements, particularly involving data centers and industrial facilities, has raised questions about how interconnected generators should serve these co-located loads when they are physically connected to an existing or planned generator on the generator side of the point of interconnection. These arrangements have introduced issues around potential cross-subsidization, cost shifting, grid reliability, resource adequacy, and jurisdictional boundaries.
In this show-cause order (“Order”), FERC found PJM’s Tariff to be potentially unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory, or preferential for lacking explicit provisions on co-location arrangements. The Order highlighted several key issues:
1. Jurisdictional Debate:
Co-located arrangements introduce jurisdictional questions. Some stakeholders have argued that FERC’s jurisdiction should be limited to interstate wholesale transactions and that states should retain control over retail sales and behind-the-meter arrangements. Others argue that load served directly by a generator is analogous to behind-the-meter generation and is exempt from FERC oversight. PJM and others maintain that co-located loads still benefit from grid services and should thus fall under FERC’s oversight when those services affect wholesale rates and grid reliability.
2. Cost Allocation and Grid Services:
A significant concern is whether co-located loads can fully isolate from the electric grid and avoid paying their share of costs for transmission services and for ancillary services from PJM. PJM and its market monitor have argued that co-located loads should be treated like other grid-connected loads and should pay for network services, ancillary services, and capacity. Other stakeholders have countered that since co-located loads can fully isolate and not draw power from the grid, they should not incur transmission service charges.
3. Reliability and Resource Adequacy:
Several parties have highlighted potential risks that co-located loads might impose on grid stability, particularly when large loads bypass the traditional planning process. For example, sudden shifts in demand or the loss of a co-located generator could compromise grid stability. PJM emphasized that the rapid growth of such loads could strain existing capacity reserves and suggested that planning frameworks need adjustments to incorporate these arrangements effectively. However, proponents of co-located load arrangements have argued that such configurations can offer benefits like reducing grid congestion, easing interconnection backlogs, and energizing data centers more quickly.
In the Order, FERC directed PJM and the Transmission Owners to provide justifications for the current tariff or suggest changes within 30 days. These justifications must address concerns related to jurisdiction, cost allocation, reliability, and potential discriminatory practices. FERC requested answers to approximately 40 questions related to jurisdictional principles, the type of transmission service used under various configurations, cost allocation, and the impacts on the wholesale market and ancillary services.
Concentric Energy Advisors’ Wholesale Energy Markets practice helps utilities, independent power producers, and government entities shape and understand wholesale electric market design and operational issues. Contact Danielle Powers, Chief Executive Officer, at dpowers@ceadvisors.com or 508.263.6219 to learn more about our services.
— All views expressed by the author are solely the author’s current views and do not reflect the views of Concentric Energy Advisors, Inc., its affiliates, subsidiaries, related companies, or clients. The author’s views are based upon information the author considers reliable at the time of publication. However, neither Concentric Energy Advisors, Inc., nor its affiliates, subsidiaries, and related companies warrant the information’s completeness or accuracy, and it should not be relied upon as such.