Docket No. ER26-3257-000
I concur in today’s order rejecting ComEd’s Notice of Cancellation. My colleagues would allow the pending federal district court case between ComEd and PowerHouse Hillwood to proceed rather than weigh in now. I agree and write separately to emphasize what is at stake.
There is broad bipartisan consensus around the imperative to shield consumers from the costs of data centers.1 The Credit Support structure at issue is supposed to serve as a security deposit that ensures the utility’s other customers, including residential customers, are not left with the bill for infrastructure if a data center does not come online as planned.
A $1 letter of credit protects no one.
One dollar cannot guarantee payment, performance, or cover infrastructure costs if a large load project does not move forward. Those costs would then fall on households and small businesses.
As the record shows, this token amount would leave ComEd’s customers unsecured for years while grid investments are planned and built. That outcome is precisely what the Commission sought to prevent in its order accepting the contract, saying then that “the Transmission Security Agreement includes ‘safeguards to protect customers’ that otherwise would not exist.”2 The agreement’s Credit Support provisions unmistakably exist to “guarantee[] the payment and performance obligations of Hillwood.”3
This dispute also illustrates why the Commission directed the inclusion of pro forma cost‑recovery agreements in the June 2026 Large Load show cause proceedings: requiring security deposits helps ensure both project viability and transparency.4 Cost-recovery agreements matter because they enable efficient and accurate planning, and ensure that project risks stay where they belong: with the developer, not the public.5
Accordingly, while I join my colleagues because federal court proceedings have already been initiated, I underscore that contracts like this are where affordability questions become real for American families and small businesses.
For these reasons, I respectfully concur.
- 1See e.g. President Trump’s Ratepayer Protection Pledge, Proclamation No. 11014, 91 Fed. Reg. 11439 (Mar. 4, 2026); Ratepayer Protection Act, H.R.9340 (passing the House on September 16, 2026 in a 417 to 3 vote).
- 2Commonwealth Edison Co., 194 FERC ¶ 61,183, at P 30 (2026).
- 3Id. at P 6; see also Transmission Security Agreement § 9(A)(f) (explaining that ComEd “may draw upon the Credit Support or cash security for any and all unpaid costs or amounts owed to it pursuant to this TSA”).
- 4See e.g., PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 195 FERC ¶ 61,211, at PP 77-84 (2026).
- 5Id. Rosner, Comm’r, concurring at PP 7-9, available at https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/news/commissioner-rosners-remarks-large-load-show-cause-orders-e-7-e-12-june-18-2026.