# Large Load Interconnection > From the DOE §403 ANOPR (Docket RM26-4-000) to FERC’s June 18, 2026 tailored §206 show cause orders On October 23, 2025, the Department of Energy invoked its rarely used § 403 authority to direct FERC to open a rulemaking on connecting large loads (data centers, AI, advanced manufacturing) to the interstate grid (Docket RM26-4-000), and asked for final action by April 30, 2026. Rather than run a multi-year rulemaking, FERC answered on June 18, 2026 with six tailored § 206 show cause orders, one to each RTO/ISO. Each makes a threshold finding that the region’s tariff may be unjust and unreasonable for lack of clear, consistent large-load rules, then puts the market on a 30/60-day clock to defend the status quo or file a fix across the same five reform categories. The through-line is cost causation made visible: the large load that triggers a network upgrade should bear its cost and spare ordinary ratepayers, with new transparency into how those costs are identified and allocated. The same morning, FERC issued Item E-2 (EL25-49-002), the order on rehearing that finalizes the rates and terms for the three new transmission services its PJM co-location proceeding created, the same services the six orders extend to every other region. As of the August 3, 2026 sweep, all six markets have used the tools the clock gives them. Every RTO/ISO filed its 30-day generation-adequacy report by July 20 (confirmed on eLibrary for all six). Every one of the six proceedings now carries an abeyance motion: PJM and its Transmission Owners filed five days early, on July 28; the other five followed on August 3, the deadline itself. FERC opened an answer period on PJM's motion, and large stakeholders are answering in support rather than opposing it. August 17 still carries the six show-cause filings for any docket that isn't held in abeyance, plus PJM's separate request to extend its co-location compliance deadline. Running beside all of it, FERC opened the post-conference comment period on PJM's own governance on July 30, in Docket AD26-7-000, heading toward a September reform deadline. The August 9, 2026 sweep finds the answer period producing the record's first real division. American Municipal Power is the lone opponent, arguing MISO's abeyance motion does not meet the show cause order's own abeyance standard, and asking FERC to condition further abeyance on a 20-day stakeholder proposal rather than deny it outright. Every other answer's own filed description states support for its docket's motion, from Constellation, an industrial customer coalition, the Corporate Energy Buyers Association, a state committee and state commissions; the one ambiguously worded exception (a state committee's answer in ISO-NE's docket) was confirmed as support by reading the filing directly. PJM's docket alone gained a third, separate abeyance motion, from a respondent asking FERC to rule by August 13 so it has certainty ahead of the August 17 deadline. Newly confirmed, known only through an Aug 4 Constellation answer that cites and dates them: the Indicated PJM Transmission Owners and, jointly, Exelon and FirstEnergy sought rehearing of both the PJM order and the E-2 order on July 20. Constellation's answer, opposing both, says the Exelon/FirstEnergy E-2 request largely repeats an earlier rehearing request the Commission already rejected. On the governance track, FERC's July 30 notice, once its own text was read directly, sets two concrete dates: post-conference comments are due August 21, and its Alternative Dispute Resolution forum is set to commence September 1. And PJM's capacity backstop moved from a stated intent to a proposed FERC filing on July 31 (Docket ER26-3380, not yet acted on): a one-time reliability auction targeting the same 6,831 MW shortfall, at a $555/MW-day cap and up to $20 billion. No docket has a FERC ruling yet on any pending abeyance motion. A static, independent analysis microsite (not affiliated with FERC or DOE). Source of truth: docs/js/data.js. Evidence is kept in three visibly distinct tiers: FERC primary, DOE primary, and secondary analysis. ## Key facts - Authority: Federal Power Act § 206 · DOE Organization Act § 403 - Items and dockets: Items E-7 to E-12 · Dockets EL26-67-000 to EL26-72-000 - Reporter cites: 195 FERC ¶ 61,211 to 61,216 - Commission: Laura V. Swett (Chairman) · David Rosner · Lindsay S. See · Judy W. Chang · David LaCerte - Order record as of 2026-06-22; Discourse commentary gathered 2026-06-29 - RTOs / ISOs: 6, all FERC-jurisdictional grid operators + their TOs - Reform categories: 5, teed up in each tailored order - Informational report: 30 days, resource-adequacy plan to serve large loads - Justify or file: 60 days, defend tariffs or propose §206 revisions - “Large load”: > 20 MW, DOE threshold (per Order No. 2003) - Pages reviewed: 3,500+, public comments in the RM26-4 docket ## The six show cause orders (E-7 to E-12) Each order PDF is committed and served at the page-precise link below; the official FERC source (Cloudflare-gated) is noted after it. - [E-7 PJM, EL26-67-000, 195 FERC ¶ 61,211, 114 pp](https://pranava0x0.github.io/FERC-Orders-June-2026/orders/e-7-pjm-el26-67-000.pdf): Co-location rules already in place. Region: Mid-Atlantic / 13 states + DC. Official: https://www.ferc.gov/media/e-7-el26-67-000 - [E-8 MISO, EL26-70-000, 195 FERC ¶ 61,212, 115 pp](https://pranava0x0.github.io/FERC-Orders-June-2026/orders/e-8-miso-el26-70-000.pdf): Early-stage large-load rules. Region: 15 states, Midwest + South. Official: https://www.ferc.gov/media/e-8-el26-70-000 - [E-9 SPP, EL26-68-000, 195 FERC ¶ 61,213, 92 pp](https://pranava0x0.github.io/FERC-Orders-June-2026/orders/e-9-spp-el26-68-000.pdf): Most mature: HILL / HILLGA. Region: Central U.S., 14+ states. Official: https://www.ferc.gov/media/e-9-el26-68-000 - [E-10 CAISO, EL26-71-000, 195 FERC ¶ 61,214, 118 pp](https://pranava0x0.github.io/FERC-Orders-June-2026/orders/e-10-caiso-el26-71-000.pdf): No Order No. 888 service. Region: California (+ WEIM footprint). Official: https://www.ferc.gov/media/e-10-el26-71-000 - [E-11 ISO-NE, EL26-72-000, 195 FERC ¶ 61,215, 115 pp](https://pranava0x0.github.io/FERC-Orders-June-2026/orders/e-11-isone-el26-72-000.pdf): Transmission-constrained grid. Region: Six New England states. Official: https://www.ferc.gov/media/e11-el26-72-000 - [E-12 NYISO, EL26-69-000, 195 FERC ¶ 61,216, 119 pp](https://pranava0x0.github.io/FERC-Orders-June-2026/orders/e-12-nyiso-el26-69-000.pdf): Largely outside the tariff today. Region: New York State. Official: https://www.ferc.gov/media/e12-el26-69-000 ## The PJM co-location rehearing order the six extend (Item E-2) - [E-2 PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., EL25-49-002, 195 FERC ¶ 61,209, 278 pp](https://pranava0x0.github.io/FERC-Orders-June-2026/orders/e-2-pjm-el25-49-002.pdf): Order on rehearing, clarification, compliance & paper hearing on the December 18, 2025 PJM Co-Location Order (193 FERC ¶ 61,217), issued June 18, 2026. Finalizes PJM’s co-location services (Interim NITS, FCD, NFCD) — the services the six §206 orders extend. Official: https://www.ferc.gov/media/e-2-el25-49-002 ## The five reform categories - 1. Application & study processes (incl. alternative transmission technologies): Developing efficient transmission-service application and study processes, including consideration of alternative transmission technologies. - 2. Cost-shifting prevention & transmission-cost transparency: Preventing cost shifting and requiring transparency into transmission costs. - 3. Co-location arrangements & behind-the-meter (BTM) generation: Accommodating co-location agreements and behind-the-meter generation. - 4. New transmission services for flexible large loads: Providing new transmission services for flexible large loads. - 5. Studying generation serving electrically proximate / co-located loads: Developing a process to study generating facilities that serve electrically proximate large loads and co-located loads. ## Primary sources - [DOE §403 Letter & enclosed ANOPR](https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2025-10/403%20Large%20Loads%20Letter.pdf): U.S. Dept. of Energy (Sec. Chris Wright), captured 2026-06-22 - [News Release: “FERC Launches Aggressive Targeted Action to Speed Large Load Integration”](http://web.archive.org/web/20260618211730/https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/news/ferc-launches-aggressive-targeted-action-speed-large-load-integration): FERC, Office of External Affairs, captured 2026-06-18 (Internet Archive) - [Fact Sheet: “FERC Takes Action to Supercharge America’s Grid…”](http://web.archive.org/web/20260620020229/https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/news/fact-sheet-ferc-takes-action-supercharge-americas-grid-efficiency-reliability-and): FERC, captured 2026-06-20 (Internet Archive) - [Summaries: June 2026 Commission Meeting](http://web.archive.org/web/20260618204955/https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/news/summaries-june-2026-commission-meeting): FERC, Office of External Affairs, captured 2026-06-18 (Internet Archive) - [Docket RM26-4-000 landing page: “Interconnection of Large Loads…”](http://web.archive.org/web/20260619085932/https://www.ferc.gov/rm26-4): FERC, captured 2026-06-19 (Internet Archive) ## Parallel proceedings (as of the 2026-08-09 news sweep) ### The six-market §206 clock (`sc6`) - Venue: FERC Dockets EL26-67-000 to EL26-72-000 - What: Six show cause orders on one 60-day clock. Each RTO or ISO must defend its tariff or file a fix. - Why it is tracked separately: This is the main proceeding the site tracks. The other lanes run beside it, each on its own clock. - Status (2026-08-09): The abeyance wave is now in its answer period, and it shows the record's first real division. American Municipal Power filed the lone opposition (to MISO's motion, Aug 7), arguing it fails the order's own abeyance standard and asking FERC to condition further abeyance on a 20-day stakeholder proposal. Every other answer's own filed description states support for its docket's motion instead. PJM's docket alone carries a third, separate abeyance motion, from Silver Run Electric (Aug 3), asking FERC to rule by Aug 13. Also newly confirmed, known only through Constellation's Aug 4 answer citing them: the Indicated PJM Transmission Owners and, jointly, Exelon and FirstEnergy sought rehearing or clarification of the PJM order on July 20; Constellation's answer opposes both. No docket has a FERC ruling yet on any pending abeyance motion. - Next: 2026-08-17, Show-cause / tariff filings due (any docket not held in abeyance) - Fall 2026, if requested: Abeyance requests can slow the clock, but only within a bounded lane - After the response records close: FERC decides whether to accept, modify, or impose a §206 remedy - Parallel lane: Rehearing and court-review risk runs alongside implementation ### PJM co-location: EL25-49 (`e2`) - Venue: FERC Docket EL25-49 (Item E-2, order on rehearing) - What: The PJM co-location proceeding that created the three new transmission services the six orders extend to every other region. - Why it is tracked separately: A different docket with its own compliance clock. Its further compliance filing lands Aug 17, the same day as the six show-cause filings. - Status (2026-08-09): The same July 20 rehearing wave also targeted this order, known only through Constellation's Aug 4 answer citing them: the Indicated PJM Transmission Owners and, jointly, Exelon and FirstEnergy sought rehearing or clarification of the June 2026 Co-Location Order. Constellation's answer opposes both requests, says the Exelon/FirstEnergy request largely repeats arguments from a rehearing request the Commission already rejected against the December 2025 order, and asks FERC to grant Constellation's own pending rehearing request instead. That is separate from PJM's Jul 28 compliance-deadline extension request, still awaiting a ruling, and the Third and D.C. Circuit appeals of the December 2025 / February 2026 predecessor orders, still pending. - Next: 2026-08-17, PJM and PJM TOs further compliance filing (if the extension isn't granted) - Dec 2025 to Jun 2026: Track record builds: PJM co-location order + SPP HILL/HILLGA - Jul 20, 2026: The same Transmission Owners seek rehearing of the E-2 co-location order - Jul 28, 2026: PJM separately seeks more time on its co-location compliance filing ### PJM governance: AD26-7 (`gov`) - Venue: FERC Docket AD26-7-000 (Commission-led technical conference) - What: A July 23 conference on who runs PJM: board independence, the stakeholder process, and the states’ role. - Why it is tracked separately: Runs outside the §206 clock. Its September deadlines decide who controls PJM’s follow-through filings. - Also known as: Also referred to in shorthand as the Swett technical conference, after the chairman who convened it. - Status (2026-08-09): FERC set two concrete dates in its Aug 4 Federal Register notice: post-conference comments are due Aug 21, 2026, and its Alternative Dispute Resolution forum is set to commence Sept 1, 2026. The chairman's end-of-September deadline for a PJM reform package, or FERC imposing its own, remains a closing-remarks commitment with no calendar date yet noticed. A handful of comments, mostly from individuals, are already on the docket. - Next: 2026-08-21, Post-conference comments due - May 18, 2026: FERC notices a technical conference on PJM governance (AD26-7-000) - Jul 23, 2026: FERC holds the PJM governance conference and sets a September deadline - Jul 30, 2026: FERC opens the post-conference comment period on PJM governance ### The RM26-4 record (`rm264`) - Venue: FERC Docket RM26-4-000 (the DOE §403 rulemaking) - What: The rulemaking DOE’s §403 directive opened, and the 3,500-plus pages of comment the orders were built on. - Why it is tracked separately: Still open. Everything the six orders left unaddressed stays live here, which is what the record-to-rule crosswalk tracks. - Status (2026-07-28): Open with no dated next step. FERC answered the directive with the six §206 orders rather than a rule. - Next: No dated step on the record - Oct 23, 2025: DOE issues a § 403 directive + enclosed ANOPR - Oct 23, 2025: Fourteen ANOPR principles define the reform menu - Late 2025 to Jan 2026: FERC opens RM26-4-000, takes comment, extends the period ### Market context (`context`) - Venue: not a docket - What: Auction results and market events that set the stakes for the filings, from outside any of the dockets. - Why it is tracked separately: None of these are filings. They are kept in their own lane so the rail never reads an auction result as a docket event. - Status (2026-08-09): PJM's capacity backstop moved from a stated intent to an actual FERC filing: on Jul 31 it filed the backstop auction plan (Docket ER26-3380), proposing a one-time reliability auction from Sept 30 to Oct 21 at a $555/MW-day cap, up to $20 billion, targeting the same 6,831 MW shortfall as the July 14 auction. More than 30 parties, from state commissions to a data center operator, have moved to intervene; no protests are on the docket yet. - Next: 2026-09-30, PJM's one-time reliability backstop auction opens (Docket ER26-3380) - Jul 14, 2026: PJM’s capacity auction clears at the cap, short of its reserve target - Jul 31, 2026: PJM files its backstop capacity auction plan at FERC ## Observed filings (checked 2026-08-03) - Observed filings only. An empty cell means our checks found nothing, which is not proof nothing was filed. Every report and abeyance cell below is confirmed against its own eLibrary accession as of this sweep. - Status vocabulary: `filed-verified` (eLibrary accession seen) · `filed-reported` (press or operator channel only) · `signaled` (announced intent). An absent row means our checks observed nothing, which is not proof nothing was filed. - PJM (EL26-67-000), report, filed-verified, 2026-07-20: PJM's informational filing on regional resource adequacy in compliance with the show-cause order. Accession: 20260720-5203. - SPP (EL26-68-000), report, filed-verified, 2026-07-20: SPP's informational filing on regional resource adequacy in compliance with the show-cause order. Accession: 20260720-5205. - NYISO (EL26-69-000), report, filed-verified, 2026-07-20: NYISO's informational filing on regional resource adequacy in compliance with the show-cause order. Accession: 20260720-5217. - MISO (EL26-70-000), report, filed-verified, 2026-07-20: MISO's informational filing on regional resource adequacy in compliance with the show-cause order. Accession: 20260720-5204. - CAISO (EL26-71-000), report, filed-verified, 2026-07-20: CAISO's informational filing on regional resource adequacy in compliance with the show-cause order. Accession: 20260720-5202. - ISO-NE (EL26-72-000), report, filed-verified, 2026-07-20: Informational filing on regional resource adequacy. Outlines requiring new large loads to bring incremental new generation, and not procuring capacity for them through the regional capacity market. Accession: 20260720-5216. - PJM (EL26-67-000), abeyance, filed-verified, 2026-07-28: PJM Interconnection moves to hold the proceeding in abeyance with a shortened answer period; the Indicated PJM Transmission Owners file a parallel motion the same day. Filed five days ahead of the deadline. FERC sets an answer period Jul 30 (20260730-3026); Constellation and the PJM Industrial Customer Coalition answer in support Aug 3. Accession: 20260728-5084. - SPP (EL26-68-000), abeyance, filed-verified, 2026-08-03: Joint motion of Southwest Power Pool and other respondents to hold the proceeding in abeyance. Accession: 20260803-5209. - NYISO (EL26-69-000), abeyance, filed-verified, 2026-08-03: NYISO moves for abeyance; the New York Transmission Owners (Con Edison, NYSEG, National Grid, O&R, RG&E, Central Hudson) and LS Power Grid New York / New York Transco file two further, separate abeyance motions the same day. Accession: 20260803-5229. - MISO (EL26-70-000), abeyance, filed-verified, 2026-08-03: Joint motion of MISO and the MISO Transmission Owners to hold the proceeding in abeyance. Accession: 20260803-5249. - CAISO (EL26-71-000), abeyance, filed-verified, 2026-08-03: CAISO moves for abeyance; a coalition of California transmission owners (SCE, SDG&E, PG&E and others) files a separate joint abeyance request the same day. The “Six Cities” (Anaheim, Azusa, Banning, Colton, Pasadena, Riverside) file a conditional abeyance motion, having already moved Jul 31 to rescind the order outright; the Western Area Power Administration separately moves to rescind as applied to itself. Accession: 20260803-5206. - ISO-NE (EL26-72-000), abeyance, filed-verified, 2026-08-03: Joint motion of ISO New England and the Participating Transmission Owners Administrative Committee to hold the proceeding in abeyance — following through on the intent signaled Jun 29. Accession: 20260803-5083. ## Commentary themes (secondary, in two dated waves) - [wave 1, reaction to the June 18 orders, captured 2026-06-29] Cost responsibility is the center of gravity: Across the post-order discussion, the basic question is not whether large loads should connect faster; it is whether the tariff makes the beneficiary carry the cost and risk of the upgrade. - "There’s no real quarantining of the cost caused by data centers to those data centers" Source: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/18062026/federal-energy-regulatory-commission-data-center-orders/ - "those loads bear the costs incurred to serve them" Source: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jeffdennis77_ecaferclargeloadinterconnectionstatementpdf-activity-7473477334738599936-NWa- - "increasing scrutiny on who pays for transmission to connect data centers" Source: https://x.com/aniruddh_mohan/status/2069973894237184457 - "President Trump's Ratepayer Protection Pledge" Source: https://www.energy.gov/articles/department-energy-applauds-fercs-action-large-load-interconnection-reform - [wave 1, reaction to the June 18 orders, captured 2026-06-29] The regional route is both substance and litigation strategy: The six-order structure is being read as a deliberate alternative to one national template: faster than a rulemaking, more tailored to each market, and easier to defend on the record. - "far more substantively ambitious than the ANOPR" Source: https://www.utilitydive.com/news/ferc-doe-data-center-interconnection/823360/ - "six regional answers to the same question, decided on six different timelines" Source: https://www.utilitydive.com/news/ferc-doe-data-center-interconnection/823360/ - "a much more robust and detailed administrative record" Source: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/energy-regulator-staves-off-critique-in-new-data-center-orders - "reduces future litigation entry points" Source: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/energy-regulator-staves-off-critique-in-new-data-center-orders - [wave 1, reaction to the June 18 orders, captured 2026-06-29] Speed now depends on provable flexibility: The strongest pro-speed argument treats data centers as controllable loads, but the quotes also show the hard edge: flexibility has to be operational, measurable, and worth something in the tariff. - "emergency data-center load reduction ripe for deeper industry analysis" Source: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/demand-hereare-we-ready-build-briggs-white-cixae - "flexible AI data centers can adjust demand dynamically and act as grid assets, not only as fixed loads" Source: https://www.latitudemedia.com/news/catalyst-the-rise-of-flexible-data-centers/ - "asset-backed flexible data centers can operate as grid assets" Source: https://www.volts.wtf/p/can-data-centers-be-good-grid-citizens - "paying other customers to shift load can be faster and more cost effective than curtailing expensive data-center chips" Source: https://www.eenews.net/articles/how-big-tech-learned-to-speak-ferc/ - [wave 1, reaction to the June 18 orders, captured 2026-06-29] Reliability and security remain live objections: The order is not landing as a pure acceleration story. Consumer and security voices are treating faster interconnection as acceptable only if modeling, operating standards, and stability protections keep up. - "security gaps remain" Source: https://x.com/BenSchifman/article/2067679572431138993 - "data centers need any more help with interconnection to the grid" Source: https://x.com/Ben_Inskeep/status/2068025625860841880 - "standards and rules in place that protect ratepayers from any negative stability, reliability and resiliency impacts" Source: https://x.com/Ben_Inskeep/status/2068025625860841880 - [wave 1, reaction to the June 18 orders, captured 2026-06-29] The physical buildout is bigger than the FERC clock: The discourse keeps returning to the same physical constraint: the orders can compress process, but turbines, transformers, generation, local consent, and deliverable capacity still decide which projects energize. - "power conversations for individual data centers have moved from megawatts to gigawatts" Source: https://cleanpower.org/blog/american-energy-american-ai-powering-a-secure-future/ - "gas-turbine, transformer and interconnection lead times" Source: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/demand-hereare-we-ready-build-briggs-white-cixae - "power constraints and political resistance" Source: https://www.shanumathew.com/writing/data-centers-focus-on-energized-gw - "developers are pairing data-center growth with behind-the-meter generation and siting near stranded or underused power" Source: https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news-and-insights/latest-market-news/2804882-us-grid-overhaul-urgently-needed-to-meet-ai-load-ferc - [wave 1, reaction to the June 18 orders, captured 2026-06-29] The organized-market focus leaves a Southeast gap: The order covers the six RTO/ISO markets, while several reactions flag the regions outside that structure as exactly where transmission planning and interconnection practice may be weakest. - "non-RTO areas, which typically suffer from the worst transmission and interconnection practices" Source: https://www.utilitydive.com/news/ferc-doe-data-center-interconnection/823360/ - "The Southeast needs a modern transmission system" Source: https://ceba.org/southeast-energy-opportunities-require-a-bigger-better-faster-grid-business-leaders-call-for-regional-transmission-planning/ - "we risk higher energy prices, power shortages, and lost economic opportunities" Source: https://ceba.org/southeast-energy-opportunities-require-a-bigger-better-faster-grid-business-leaders-call-for-regional-transmission-planning/ - [wave 2, the filings and the governance fight, captured 2026-08-09] PJM’s own legitimacy becomes the story: The July 23 technical conference put PJM’s decision-making machinery on the record, and on a September clock. The same commission running the §206 filings is now asking who gets to decide what PJM files, which makes this lane a precondition for the other one rather than a sideshow. - "PJM is facing a grave legitimacy crisis" Source: https://www.utilitydive.com/news/ferc-pjm-governance-reforms-data-centers-capacity-market/826140/ - "Some transmission owners are openly discussing leaving the RTO altogether" Source: https://www.utilitydive.com/news/ferc-pjm-governance-reforms-data-centers-capacity-market/826140/ - "This is a cultural quagmire" Source: https://www.utilitydive.com/news/ferc-pjm-governance-reforms-data-centers-capacity-market/826140/ - [wave 2, the filings and the governance fight, captured 2026-08-09] Regional divergence: the tailoring thesis meets the record: The first observed answer to the 30-day reports points somewhere different from PJM’s expedited-new-entry posture. ISO-NE looks to new generation and away from its capacity market. That is the regional variation the six tailored orders were built to permit, showing up as substance rather than as a gap. - "requiring new large loads to bring incremental new generation" Source: https://isonewswire.com/2026/07/21/update-on-iso-ne-compliance-with-ferc-large-and-co-located-loads-order/ - "not procuring capacity through the regional capacity market to serve these large loads" Source: https://isonewswire.com/2026/07/21/update-on-iso-ne-compliance-with-ferc-large-and-co-located-loads-order/ - "intend to request a 90-day abeyance" Source: https://isonewswire.com/2026/06/29/iso-ne-provides-update-on-compliance-with-ferc-large-loads-order/ - [wave 2, the filings and the governance fight, captured 2026-08-09] Capacity scarcity is the arithmetic behind the argument: PJM’s 2028/2029 auction cleared at its cap for the third year running and still landed short of the reserve-margin target. Every claim about who should pay for new load is being made against that number. - "The price came in at the FERC-approved cap of $325/MW-day" Source: https://www.pjm.com/-/media/DotCom/about-pjm/newsroom/2026-releases/20260714-pjm-capacity-auction-procures-138318-mw-generation-resources.pdf - "short of PJM’s 20% installed reserve margin target by 6,831 MW" Source: https://www.pjm.com/-/media/DotCom/about-pjm/newsroom/2026-releases/20260714-pjm-capacity-auction-procures-138318-mw-generation-resources.pdf ## The RM26-4 public comments (corpus) - 273 public comments (of 423 total eLibrary filings) on the DOE ANOPR (Docket RM26-4-000) were scraped from FERC eLibrary. Each text-extracted comment carries a quote-centric, auditable summary built the PNNL "CommentNEPA" way: verbatim quotes pulled from the filing, binned to the five reform principles / eight ANOPR questions / six regions (plus emergent topics), each bin with the filer's stance. AI-generated and provisional (not yet human-verified). - Per-comment summaries: `sources/comments/summaries-v2/.json`. Compiled for the site: `docs/js/comments-data.js` (`window.FERC_COMMENTS`). Method + schema: `sources/comments/summarization-spec.md`. Explore on the Comments tab (a stance map + per-comment audited analysis). ## Read the site - [Large Load Interconnection](https://pranava0x0.github.io/FERC-Orders-June-2026/): six tabs (Overview, Timeline, Reforms, Dockets, Comments, Discourse).