EL26-67-000 · 2026-07-28 · Indicated PJM Transmission Owners

Motion for Abeyance of the Indicated PJM Transmission Owners and Request for Expedited Action and Shortened Comment Period

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
BEFORE THE 
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., et al.   
)  
Docket No. EL26-67-000
MOTION FOR ABEYANCE OF THE INDICATED PJM TRANSMISSION OWNERS 
AND REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED ACTION  
AND SHORTENED COMMENT PERIOD 
Pursuant to Rule 212 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission’s (“Commission” or “FERC”),1 the Indicated PJM Transmission Owners 
(“PJM Transmission Owners”)2 respectfully move to hold the deadline to respond in the above-
captioned proceeding in abeyance for 90 days, until November 16, 2026.3  Good cause exists to 
grant this motion because doing so will provide the PJM Transmission Owners adequate time to 
determine the appropriate additions and revisions to the PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff 
(“PJM Tariff”) and submit one or more filings pursuant to section 205 of the Federal Power Act 
1
18 C.F.R. § 385.212 (2025). 
2
The Indicated PJM Transmission Owners are:  American Electric Power Service Corporation on behalf of its 
affiliates, Appalachian Power Company, Indiana Michigan Power Company, Kentucky Power Company, Kingsport 
Power Company, Ohio Power Company, Wheeling Power Company, AEP Appalachian Transmission Company, Inc., 
AEP Indiana Michigan Transmission Company, Inc., AEP Kentucky Transmission Company, Inc., AEP Ohio 
Transmission Company, Inc., and AEP West Virginia Transmission Company, Inc.; The Dayton Power and Light 
Company d/b/a AES Ohio; Dominion Energy Services, Inc. on behalf of Virginia Electric and Power Company d/b/a 
Dominion Energy Virginia; Duke Energy Business Services, LLC for Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc. and Duke Energy 
Ohio, Inc.; Duquesne Light Company; East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc.; Exelon Corporation on behalf of its 
affiliates Atlantic City Electric Company, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, Commonwealth Edison Company, 
Commonwealth Edison Company of Indiana, Inc., Delmarva Power & Light Company, PECO Energy Company, and 
Potomac Electric Power Company; FirstEnergy Service Company, on behalf of its affiliates American Transmission 
Systems, Incorporated, Jersey Central Power & Light Company, Mid-Atlantic Interstate Transmission LLC, The 
Potomac Edison Company, Monongahela Power Company, Keystone Appalachian Transmission Company, and 
Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Company (collectively, the “FirstEnergy Companies”); PPL Electric Utilities 
Corporation; Public Service Electric and Gas Company; Rockland Electric Company; and the Southern Maryland 
Electric Cooperative. 
3
See PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., et al., 195 FERC ¶ 61,211, at 39 & n.111 (2026) (explaining that the 
Commission will consider requests for full or partial abeyance of up to 90 days, including requests to hold in abeyance 
the deadline to respond) (“Show Cause Order”).  November 16 is the first business day after the end of the 90-day 
abeyance period.

2 
(“FPA”) in response to the Commission’s Show Cause Order.  The PJM Transmission Owners 
further request a shortened comment period of five (5) days to facilitate the Commission issuing 
an order granting the motion to hold the deadline to respond in abeyance no later than August 10, 
2026.   
I.
BACKGROUND 
On June 18, 2026, the Commission issued a show cause order under section 206 of the FPA 
to PJM, together with its transmission owners, directing PJM and the PJM Transmission Owners 
to justify or reform the tariff provisions governing how large loads connect to and receive service 
from the transmission system.4
The Show Cause Order preliminarily found that the PJM Tariff appeared to be unjust, 
unreasonable, or unduly discriminatory or preferential because of a lack of sufficiently clear and 
consistent provisions to address service for large loads and related configurations.5 The 
Commission therefore directed PJM and its transmission owners, within 60 days, to show cause 
why the PJM Tariff remains just and reasonable without provisions addressing:  (1) the application 
process, study procedures, and ongoing operational requirements for Eligible Customers seeking 
transmission service on behalf of large loads; (2) additional transparency concerning Network 
Upgrade costs for such service, together with the absence of a pro forma cost recovery agreement 
and a mechanism to ensure related payments are properly credited to transmission owners’ revenue 
requirements; (3) transmission service options tailored to flexible large loads willing and able to 
limit their use of the transmission system under certain conditions; and (4) rates, terms, and 
conditions applicable to interconnection customers serving “electrically proximate large load” or 
4
Show Cause Order at PP 3, 35. 
5
Id.

3 
co-located load.6  The Commission directed PJM either to justify the absence of such provisions 
or to propose PJM Tariff revisions addressing those concerns.7
The Show Cause Order indicated that the Commission would consider requests from PJM 
and/or transmission owners to hold all or certain aspects of the FPA section 206 proceeding in 
abeyance, for up to 90 days, including the August 17, 2026, deadline to respond.8  The Commission 
explained that the purpose of such an abeyance would be to provide PJM and the PJM 
Transmission Owners time while they work through the stakeholder process to develop FPA 
section 205 filings to revise the PJM Tariff to address the issues raised in the Show Cause Order.9
II.
MOTION TO HOLD DEADLINE TO RESPOND IN ABEYANCE 
Consistent with the Commission’s directives in the Show Cause Order,10 the PJM 
Transmission Owners respectfully request that the Commission hold the deadline to respond in 
this proceeding in abeyance for a 90-day period, until November 16, 2026.  Good cause exists to 
grant this motion because doing so will allow the PJM Transmission Owners to address, through 
one or more FPA section 205 filings, the issues identified by the Commission in the Show Cause 
Order.  The PJM Transmission Owners anticipate that the FPA section 205 filings submitted by 
PJM and the PJM Transmission Owners will address the issues identified by the Commission in 
the Show Cause Order.  The PJM Transmission Owners will submit their FPA section 205 filing(s) 
6
Id. 
7
Id. 
8
Id. at P 39.  Because 60 days from issuance of the Show Cause Order falls on a Saturday, the deadline to 
respond does not end until the close of business on Monday, August 17.  See 18 C.F.R. § 385.2007(a)(2). 
9
Show Cause Order at P 39. 
10
Id.

4 
by no later than November 16, 2026, which is the date 90 days after the deadline to respond to the 
Show Cause Order.11
As the Commission has recognized, the PJM Transmission Owners have exclusive and 
unilateral rights regarding regional rates and rate design under the PJM Tariff and the cost  
allocation provisions of Schedule 12 of the PJM Tariff.12  Consistent with this obligation, the PJM 
Transmission Owners anticipate that their FPA section 205 filing(s) will contain a pro forma cost 
recovery agreement(s), as well as rates for new transmission services for “flexible large loads” and 
“electrically proximate large loads or co-located loads.”  The PJM Transmission Owners’ filing(s) 
would include any financial penalties applied to customers that fail to meet their contractual service 
limits with respect to any new transmission services.  The PJM Transmission Owners are also 
considering whether the transparency findings in the Show Cause Order may require modifications 
to the PJM Transmission Owners’ local planning procedures, such as Attachment M-3 to the PJM 
Tariff.  These items are discussed in greater detail below.   
The PJM Transmission Owners have already begun these efforts in earnest, but a 90-day 
abeyance is necessary to allow the PJM Transmission Owners sufficient time not only to develop 
these PJM Tariff provisions, but to also provide PJM and PJM stakeholders an adequate 
opportunity to review these provisions, and for the PJM Transmission Owners to consider any 
11
See id. (“The Commission will consider requests from PJM and/or the Transmission Owners to hold, for up 
to 90 days, all or certain aspects of this FPA section 206 proceeding in abeyance, including the deadline to respond 
to this order.”) (emphasis added). 
12
See Pa.-N.J.-Md. Interconnection, 105 FERC ¶ 61,294 (2003), order on compliance, 108 FERC ¶ 61,033 
(2004) (approving Settlement Agreement, Docket Nos. OA97-261-006, et al. (filed Oct. 3, 2003), as modified, 
Modification of Settlement Agreement, Docket Nos. OA97-261-009, et al., §§ 3.2, 4.2(B); 4.3, 4.5 (filed Jan. 20, 2004 
and corrected Jan. 23, 2004)).  The Settlement Agreement is incorporated into PJM OATT, § 9 and the Consolidated 
Transmission Owners Agreement (“CTOA”) at § 7.3.1, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Rate Schedules, TOA, TOA-42 
Rate Schedule FERC No. 42 (1.0.0).

5 
feedback received.13  Moreover, the PJM Transmission Owners will be actively working with PJM 
during this time on the development of non-rate terms and conditions of the new services and 
processes addressed in the Show Cause Order.      
A.
Development of a Pro Forma Cost Recovery Agreement 
In the Show Cause Order, the Commission preliminarily found that PJM’s Tariff appears 
to be unjust and unreasonable because it lacks adequate mechanisms to mitigate the risk of cost 
shifting among transmission customers.14  The Commission indicated it was concerned about the 
apparent lack of a pro forma cost recovery agreement to help ensure that Eligible Customers taking 
transmission service on behalf of large loads bear the risk and are ultimately responsible for costs 
incurred to provide transmission service, including the cost of Network Upgrades.15 The 
Commission noted that such an agreement would require “the Eligible Customer to make a 
minimum contribution toward the transmission owner’s transmission revenue requirement, if the 
Eligible Customer ultimately takes less transmission service than anticipated because the large 
load does not materialize as planned or is not developed at all.”16  The Commission stated its 
finding is not intended to alter or call into question existing regional cost allocation methods for 
Network Upgrades, but instead is focused on helping to prevent cost shifting among transmission 
customers.17
13
The PJM Transmission Owners have a contractual obligation to engage in coordination and consultation with 
PJM and the PJM Members Committee with respect to changes to the PJM Tariff.  See CTOA at § 7.5.1. 
14
Show Cause Order at P 66. 
15
Id. at P 66. 
16
Id. at P 81.  
17
Id.

6 
As explained in their comments in the ANOPR proceeding,18 and acknowledged by the 
Commission in the Show Cause Order,19 a number of PJM Transmission Owners have already 
been active in developing bilateral retail and FERC-jurisdictional agreements with large load 
customers that include protections against cost shifting.20  Nevertheless, the PJM Transmission 
Owners acknowledge and appreciate the concerns raised by the Commission in the Show Cause 
Order regarding the need to ensure that costs are not inappropriately shifted from large load 
customers to other transmission customers.  To that end, the PJM Transmission Owners intend to 
develop and file a agreement or agreements to mitigate the risk of cost shifting among transmission 
customers and ensure eligible large load customers pay their share of system upgrades.  As the 
Show Cause Order recognizes, however, this involves working through and resolving a number of 
important issues, such as the interaction with and potential overlap between a pro forma cost 
recovery agreement and bilateral cost recovery agreements between utilities and retail customers, 
as well as the specific mechanism for determining each Eligible Customer’s required minimum 
contribution.  The PJM Transmission Owners are also considering the extent to which changes 
will be needed to each transmission owner’s individual transmission rates and/or other tariff 
provisions, such as the formula rates set forth in Attachment H to the PJM Tariff.  
18
See Interconnection of Large Loads to the Interstate Transmission System, Advance Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, Docket No. RM26-4-000 (dated Oct. 23, 2025) (“ANOPR”); see also Letter from Chris Wright, Sec’y, 
U.S. Dep’t of Energy, Docket No. RM26-4-000 (dated Oct. 23, 2025). 
19
Show Cause Order at P 82 & n.159. 
20
See e.g., PECO Energy Co., 195 FERC ¶ 61,074 (2026); Commonwealth Edison Co., 194 FERC ¶ 61,181 
(2026); Commonwealth Edison Co., 194 FERC ¶ 61,183 (2026); Commonwealth Edison Co., 194 FERC ¶ 61,184 
(2026); Commonwealth Edison Co., 194 FERC ¶ 61,185 (2026); Commonwealth Edison Co., 194 FERC ¶ 61,106 
(2026); Commonwealth Edison Co., 194 FERC ¶ 61,109 (2026); Commonwealth Edison Co., 194 FERC ¶ 61,110 
(2026); Commonwealth Edison Co., 194 FERC ¶ 61,113 (2026); PECO Energy Co., 193 FERC ¶ 61,148 (2025).

7 
B.
Rate Design Related to Transmission Services for Large Loads 
In the Show Cause Order, the Commission preliminarily found that the PJM Tariff appears 
to be unjust and unreasonable because it does not include transmission services that reflect Eligible 
Customers taking transmission service on behalf of “flexible large loads” that are willing and able 
to limit their use of the transmission system under certain conditions.21 The Commission 
preliminarily found that new transmission services should be available to “flexible large loads”  
willing and able to limit their withdrawals, specifically the three new services it required for co-
located loads:  (1) Interim Network Integration Transmission Service, (2) Firm Contract Demand, 
and (3) Non-Firm Contract Demand.22  The Commission also preliminarily found that the PJM 
Tariff appears to be unjust and unreasonable because it does not contain provisions allowing a 
generator interconnection customer to seek interconnection service(s) that reflect the operational 
dynamics of serving either:  (1) an “electrically proximate large load,” or (2) a co-located load.23
Because the PJM Transmission Owners have the FPA section 205 filing rights with respect 
to regional rates and rate design under the PJM Tariff, the PJM Transmission Owners’ section 205 
filing(s) made in response to the Show Cause Order will include the rate-related provisions for any 
new transmission services that PJM offers to “flexible large load,” as well as any services 
applicable to “electrically proximate large load.”  The PJM Transmission Owners will also work 
to coordinate any proposal with the rate design proposals at issue in the PJM Co-Located Load 
proceeding24 for these new services, subject to the Commission’s directives on compliance set 
21
Show Cause Order at P 86. 
22
Id. 
23
Id. at P 95. 
24
See, e.g., Initial Brief and Joint Responses of the Indicated PJM Transmission Owners to Paper Hearing 
Questions, Docket Nos. EL25-49-000, et al. (filed Feb. 23, 2026).

8 
forth in its June 18, 2026, order in that proceeding.25  However, even assuming this is the case, the 
PJM Transmission Owners will need sufficient time to carefully consider, in coordination with 
PJM and other interested stakeholders, what additions and modifications are necessary to adapt 
those rate proposals to new services available to Eligible Customers taking transmissions service 
on behalf of “flexible large loads” and/or “electrically proximate large loads.”   
In addition to the rates for new transmission services applicable to large loads, the PJM 
Transmission Owners will also be considering whether to propose financial penalties applicable 
to customers taking one or more of the new transmission services that fail to comply with their 
contractual withdrawal limits.  Again, the PJM Transmission Owners anticipate that they will be 
able to utilize much of the work done to develop the financial penalty proposal they filed in the 
PJM Co-Located Load proceeding, but similarly will need to work through the details of how that 
proposal will apply to other types of large load customers.  
C.
Transparency Obligations Related to Network Upgrades Needed for Large 
Load Customers 
In the Show Cause Order, the Commission preliminarily found that the PJM Tariff appears 
to be unjust and unreasonable because it does not contain provisions requiring the provision of 
data on PJM’s website: 
in a single location, and in an easily accessible format that is searchable and allows 
users to filter the data, on transmission service requested by Eligible Customers on 
behalf of large loads, for Network Upgrades evaluated in the local transmission 
planning process that are needed to provide transmission service to Eligible 
Customers on behalf of those large loads, and the costs for those Network 
Upgrades.26
25
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., et al., 195 FERC ¶ 61,209 (2026). 
26
Show Cause Order at P 71.

9 
The Commission preliminarily found cost transparency measures are needed to provide 
stakeholders with sufficient information and visibility regarding the Network Upgrades, and their 
associated costs, needed to provide transmission service to Eligible Customers on behalf of large 
loads.27
There are two workstreams here relevant to the PJM Transmission Owners.  First, the PJM 
Transmission Owners will be working closely with PJM to develop appropriate provisions to 
provide the level of transparency anticipated in the Show Cause Order.  The PJM Transmission 
Owners’ role here is key because they will be designing, developing, and constructing many of the 
Network Upgrades necessary to accommodate the interconnection of new large loads to the 
transmission system.  This effort will involve working through a number of important issues, 
including ensuring appropriate confidentiality protections, compliance with anti-trust laws, and 
updating, where applicable, websites and databases to house such information.28
Second, the PJM Transmission Owners are considering what, if any, PJM Tariff 
modifications they will need to include in their own FPA section 205 filing(s) relating to 
transparency enhancements.  Under the CTOA, the PJM Transmission Owners retain their rights 
with respect to local transmission planning matters.29  If the PJM Transmission Owners determine 
that revisions to the PJM Tariff are needed with respect to local planning matters, such as the 
provisions of PJM Attachment M-3, the PJM Transmission Owners will include such provisions 
in their FPA section 205 filing(s) made in response to the Show Cause Order. 
27
Id. 
28
See, e.g., PJM, Project Status & Cost Allocation, https://www.pjm.com/planning/m/project-construction (last 
visited July 28, 2026). 
29
See CTOA at §§ 5.2, 5.6.

10 
III.
REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION AND SHORTENED 
COMMENT PERIOD 
The PJM Transmission Owners respectfully request expedited consideration of this motion 
for abeyance and request that the Commission issue an order granting the motion no later than 
August 10, 2026.  Expedited consideration and the issuance of order by that date will provide the 
PJM Transmission Owners sufficient assurance that they will have adequate time to develop and 
submit one or more FPA section 205 filings necessary to implement the rates, terms, and conditions 
necessary to address the Show Cause Order, as discussed above.  Expedited consideration will also 
allow the PJM Transmission Owners to focus their efforts on developing their FPA section 205 
filing(s) rather than spending critical time preparing separate responses to the Show Cause Order.  
Consistent with this request, the PJM Transmission Owners also seek a shortened comment period 
on this motion for abeyance.  Specifically, the PJM Transmission Owners request that the 
Commission establish a comment period of five (5) days.  Good cause exists to grant a shortened 
comment period for the reasons set forth above.  Moreover, no party will be prejudiced as a result 
of granting a five (5) day comment period, as the additional time and certainty afforded by an 
expedited order will accrue to the benefit of stakeholders by providing the PJM Transmission 
Owners sufficient time to solicit and consider stakeholder feedback on their proposals.

11 
IV.
CONCLUSION 
For the reasons set forth above, the PJM Transmission Owners’ request that the 
Commission establish a five (5) day comment period for answers to this motion and issue, on or 
before August 10, 2026, an order granting the PJM Transmission Owners’ request to hold the 
deadline to respond in this proceeding in abeyance for 90 days, until November 16, 2026. 
Respectfully submitted, 
/s/ Michael Kunselman 
Michael Kunselman  
Richard P. Sparling 
 
Nicholas J. Cicale 
Jonathan A. Namazi 
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP 
1301 K Street NW 
Suite 500 East 
Washington, DC 20005 
Counsel for the FirstEnergy
  Companies 
On behalf of the Indicated PJM   
  Transmission Owners
Dated:  July 28, 2026

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
Under Rule 2010 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 C.F.R. § 
385.2010 (2025), I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document upon each 
person designated on the official service list compiled by the Secretary in this proceeding.  
Dated at Washington, D.C., this 28th day of July 2026.  
/s/ Daniel Klein
Daniel Klein  
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP  
1301 K Street NW  
Suite 500 East  
Washington, DC 20005