PJM Summarizes What FERC's June 18 Orders Ask of Its Tariff for Large Loads

On June 18, 2026, FERC issued two orders on PJM. One is its Co-Located Load Order. The other is its Large Load Show Cause Order, in Docket No. EL26-67. On July 30, 2026, PJM gave stakeholders an overview of both.

The overview is PJM's summary of the orders, not the orders themselves. Parts of it follow, not the whole.

The Large Load Show Cause Order

PJM's summary says the show cause order focuses principally on large loads that are not co-located with generation. That is because of pending efforts on co-located load, it says.

The order uses FERC's jurisdiction over transmission, and over generator interconnection that derives from it, the summary says. It respects the roles and authorities reserved to the states. It disrupts no existing commercial arrangements and proposes only prospective reforms. It recognizes a "primary responsibility" of the transmission owners for large load integration studies.

FERC strongly encourages filings under section 205 to address some or all of the issues, the summary says. PJM has the option of up to a 90-day abeyance on its response to the order. That needs a sufficient plan for those filings.

FERC proposes a definition of a large load, the summary says. It is a new commercial or industrial customer, located at a single site behind one or more points of interconnection. It has a peak load of 50 MW or greater. It interconnects to the transmission system at a voltage greater than 69 kV. And it is not part of a co-location arrangement.

Applications and Studies

The summary says there is a need for an application process for customers requesting transmission service on behalf of large loads. Its key terms would include accepting applications on a rolling basis. They would include non-refundable application fees, and sufficient readiness requirements that escalate at distinct phases of the study process. Those are meant to deter duplicative or speculative requests. Customers would have to submit information about the large load. That includes disclosing to PJM any substantially similar pending requests on behalf of the same large load customer.

There is also a need for a study process that considers the unique operational challenges of serving large loads, the summary says. It names a timely study, within 60 to 90 days of receiving the request. It also names evaluating the system's ability to withstand risks observed from the large load's analyzed behavior at the point of interconnection, or any other necessary supplemental studies.

The summary sets out questions too. Does PJM recognize large loads willing and able to limit their withdrawals under certain conditions, which may lessen or potentially avoid the need for certain network upgrades? Is PJM sufficiently studying alternative transmission technologies, and explaining its findings when it selects network upgrades instead? FERC is not "mandating" those technologies, the summary says.

Operating Requirements and Costs

The summary lists questions on ongoing operating requirements. Does PJM get hourly forecasts, telemetry and other data for sufficient visibility, or specify requirements for maintaining communication channels with the transmission customer? Must transmission owners install, and customers pay for, equipment that lets PJM monitor large loads? It also asks about PJM's authority and ability to remotely disconnect large loads when necessary to maintain reliability, and the terms and conditions under which it may do so. And it asks about ramp and ride-through requirements, and about necessary control technologies and/or protection systems.

Such requirements must be set out in pro forma provisions in service agreements, the summary says.

FERC is concerned about a lack of transparency, the summary says. It is about how network upgrades for large loads, and their costs, are assigned. PJM should consider posting, at a minimum, the aggregate amounts of proposed large load additions, including by transmission pricing zone. It should consider posting the planned network upgrades for each request, by type of equipment, and their cost estimates.

FERC is also concerned about the lack of a pro forma cost recovery agreement among PJM, the transmission owner and the customer. Such an agreement would help ensure that customers bear the risk and are ultimately responsible for costs. The summary asks how to set the minimum contribution required. It also names a credit support or other financial security requirement. FERC's preliminary finding is not intended to alter or call into question existing regional cost allocation methods for network upgrades, the summary says. It is focused on helping to prevent cost shifting among transmission customers.

Flexible Loads, Co-Located Loads and Next Steps

The summary lists developing new interim and permanent transmission services for flexible large loads. These are large loads, not co-located with generation, that are willing and able to limit their withdrawals under certain conditions. It asks whether PJM should offer an interim non-firm service while network upgrades are built. It also asks about permanent firm and non-firm contract demand services, up to a specified MW quantity.

In the Co-Located Load Order, FERC found that PJM may terminate a transmission service agreement after two instances of failing to follow a load shed or curtailment directive, the summary says. FERC declined PJM's proposal to disqualify customers from the new contract demand services after one such failure. It found it just and reasonable to suspend service for up to 120 days after a first misoperation of necessary control technology or protection systems. And it directed PJM to reconsider its proposed June 1, 2029 effective date for the new transmission services.

As of July 30, PJM had filed a motion for abeyance in the large load docket, and a motion to extend the time for part of its co-located load compliance filing. If FERC accepted its motions, PJM was targeting a filing under section 205 on the large load order by early or mid-November 2026. The remaining co-located load compliance filing would come around the same time.