The disclosure and our analysis
Evidence dates
Evidence: FERC Order Accepting Tariff Revisions in Part and Rejecting Tariff Revisions in Part, 197 FERC ¶ 61,019, Docket ER26-3515-000, issued October 9, 2026, read in full text from FERC eLibrary on October 14, 2026; Utility Dive report dated October 12, 2026.
What PJM asked for
PJM filed on August 13, 2026. It proposed six elements: a definition of Large Load; a Large Load Registry; a new Interim Resource Adequacy Service, or IRAS; a requirement that load serving entities serving New Large Load designate new capacity at least equal to that load's peak; rules for Bring Your Own New Capacity arrangements; and rules to exclude Eligible New Large Load from the capacity auction demand curve starting with the 2029/2030 delivery year. [Source 1]
PJM told FERC it will be short of capacity to meet its reliability requirement beginning in the 2027/2028 delivery year, particularly due to data center load growth and the pace of data center interconnection. PJM described IRAS as involving curtailments when resources are insufficient to meet demand in real time. PJM wanted IRAS in place on June 1, 2027. [Source 1]
What FERC decided
**Accepted.** FERC accepted the Large Load definition and the Large Load Registry, effective October 12, 2026 as PJM requested, and directed PJM to make a compliance filing within 30 days. FERC found these two elements severable from the rest of the filing. [Source 1]
**Rejected.** FERC rejected the remaining revisions. The order says IRAS and Bring Your Own New Capacity are either outside the Commission's authority or were not shown to be just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory. It cites significant discrepancies between PJM's transmittal letter and its proposed tariff language. On IRAS, the order says the Federal Power Act leaves regulation of retail sales to the states. [Source 1]
Commissioner Rosner filed a concurring statement. [Source 1] Utility Dive reports that he said states should set curtailment priorities, and that a PJM spokesperson said PJM is reviewing the order. [Source 2]
What the definition and registry cover
PJM's accepted definition: end use customer load with cumulative peak load of 50 MW or greater at a single electrical site behind one or more points of interconnection. Affiliated load facilities within a one mile radius count as a single site. [Source 1] The 50 MW threshold is a peak load measure, not critical IT load, and it is not limited to data centers.
Load serving entities must report Large Loads they serve to PJM. PJM says the registry will include the customer, location, the in service date for each load increment, peak load and ramp schedule, the point of interconnection, telemetry, backup generation including fuel type and permit limits, and contracts between the load and its load serving entity. [Source 1]
Buyer analysis
This is our analysis, not a finding in the order.
**No fast lane for now.** IRAS would have offered new large loads a path to connect before new capacity existed, with curtailment risk attached. That path is rejected. Buyers planning capacity in PJM should not assume a federal interim service will shorten power timelines. Any curtailment framework now looks more likely to come through states or a revised PJM filing.
**More disclosure on power plans.** The registry asks for ramp schedules, interconnection points and backup generation details for every site of 50 MW or more. Providers in PJM will need this data in hand. Buyers can ask a provider for the same detail on their site's power ramp and backup generation.
**The capacity shortfall is PJM's statement.** PJM says it is short beginning in the 2027/2028 delivery year. The order does not resolve that shortfall.
