I write separately to underscore, clarify and harmonize my views in three related dockets: my dissent in last year’s order (Docket No. ER24-2172) that rejected proposed amendments to the Interconnection Service Agreement (ISA) among PJM, Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC (Susquehanna) and PPL Electric Utilities Corporation (PPL) that would have increased the amount of co-located load from 300 MW to 480 MW (Susquehanna Order); my vote in the instant docket to reject Exelon Companies’ proposed Tariff revisions that would have forced all load (including co-located load) that is electrically connected and synchronized when consuming power to either be designated as Network Load or to receive Point-to-Point Transmission Service; and my support for the Commission’s order, also issued today, instituting a section 206 proceeding to address various aspects of the co-location of large loads at generating stations in PJM (Section 206 Order).
My dissent in the Susquehanna Order spoke to the unique facts presented to us in that docket. As I said then, I felt that PJM adequately supported its section 205 application for a non-conforming amendment to its standard ISA given PJM’s “detailed analysis of the reliability implications of adding an incremental 180 MWs on top of the already-allowed-for 300 MWs,” and its reasoned analysis that no transmission upgrades were required by increasing the co-located load to 480 MWs.[1] I also stated that our precedent supported the approval of such non-conforming amendments where there are “unique factors, such as reliability concerns or novel legal issues.”[2] I continue to believe that the Susquehanna Order, our very first formal Commission order on a co-located load arrangement to support the power needs of a major data center, more than fit the bill for a “novel legal issue” that warranted our scrutiny and support.
But, as I also pointed out in my dissent to the Susquehanna Order, approval of the PJM application would not have “prejudg[ed] future filings or foreclose[ed] Commission flexibility in the future”[3] – qualifiers that segue well into the two co-location orders we issue today, both of which I support.
The instant order (E-8) rejects the Exelon Companies’ proposal on the procedural ground that Exelon Companies do not have authority under the Consolidated Transmission Owners’ Agreement to propose revisions to the PJM Tariff.
That rejection should not, in my opinion, be construed as a rejection of the significant and important issues raised by the Exelon Companies’ filing, and I for one am grateful that they have raised such important questions, which will help the Commission set the framework for how we address co-location arrangements going forward, including a transparent mechanism for ensuring that large loads pay their fair share of costs.
Exelon Companies’ application raised two key issues:
- Clarifying the co-located load receives NITS and must therefore be designated as either Network Load or receive Point-to-Point Transmission Service;[4]
- Proposing revisions to Attachment H which state that “all load in the [Exelon Companies’] Zone that is electrically connected and synchronized when consuming power” must take Network Integration Transmission Service or Point-to-Point Transmission Service.[5]
Although the final answers to those two issues are not addressed in the current order, they are incorporated broadly in the Section 206 Order (E-1) issued today.[6] That order frames the underlying issues that we must address thoughtfully and comprehensively to accommodate what will be a host of co-location requests that are headed our way, including: jurisdiction, wholesale grid services, reliability, and resource adequacy. Many of the questions raised in Exelon Companies’ section 205 application – and others – will be addressed in the section 206 proceeding. I look forward to all stakeholders’ (including our state colleagues) active participation in that docket, as the Commission grapples with the adoption of a definition and framework for co-location arrangements.
Reliable and abundant energy were as central to the American Industrial Revolution more than a century ago as they are to the data centers that are being developed today. Then, as now, the United States has all the resources needed to meet these challenges: American ingenuity, a skilled and productive labor force, and virtually abundant energy resources of all kind. The Commission and the many other entities, public and private, contributing to this extraordinary opportunity must add speed to our toolbox, not just because the need is urgent, but because our global competitors covet this new load as much as we do.
Data centers, artificial intelligence, and other information-related technologies are transforming the world. To that end, there has emerged a clear, bipartisan consensus that these are national interest resources with profound implications for both our national security and economic growth. I believe that this Commission, in cooperation with our federal, state, and local partners, should take all reasonable steps within our authority to support their development. I view today’s orders as a down payment on this important national investment.
For these reasons, I respectfully concur.
[1] PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 189 FERC ¶ 61,078 (2024) (Phillips, Chairman, dissenting at P 2).
[2] Id. P 1 .
[3] Id. P 2.
[4] See Atl. City Elec. Co., 190 FERC ¶ 61,109 at P 5 (2025) (stating that Exelon Companies believe that this will confirm that co-located end-use load will bear the share of the costs of the transmission system that such loads use and receive benefits from).
[5] See id. P 21 (stating that Exelon Companies contend that the intent of the language “electrically connected and synchronized when consuming power” is to clarify that co-located load would be Network Load of a Network Customer).
[6] See PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 190 FERC ¶ 61,115, at P 88 (2025) (briefing questions b.iii and b.vi).