{"document":{"slug":"filing-20260803-5261","title":"Motion for Abeyance and Request for Shortened Answer Period and Expedited Treatment of Silver Run Electric, LLC","issued":"2026-08-03","accession":"20260803-5261","docket":"EL26-67-000","group":"PJM filings","filer":"Silver Run Electric, LLC","kind":"answer","file":"sources/originals/20260803-5261_01.pdf","url":"https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/filelist?accession_Number=20260803-5261","sha256":"c15f2d68d392d42f8dce5c9552959527837292eda9a7f0349d172aaf19ce278f","pages":9,"tokens":2603,"emptyPages":[]},"pages":[{"page":1,"startToken":0,"endToken":221,"text":"1 \nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA \nBEFORE THE \nFEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION \nPJM Interconnection, L.L.C., et al. \n \n) \n) \n) \n) \nDocket No. EL26-67-000 \nMOTION FOR ABEYANCE AND REQUEST FOR SHORTENED ANSWER PERIOD \nAND EXPEDITED TREATMENT OF  \nSILVER RUN ELECTRIC, LLC \nI. \nINTRODUCTION \nPursuant to Rule 212 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (“FERC” or \n“Commission”) Rules of Practice and Procedure,1 Silver Run Electric, LLC (“Silver Run”) \nrespectfully submits this Motion for Abeyance in response to the Order Instituting Proceeding \nUnder Section 206 of the Federal Power Act, issued in the above-captioned proceeding on June \n18, 2026.2  Silver Run seeks a 90-day full abeyance of the current 60-day deadline to respond to \nall issues raised in the Show Cause Order so that Silver Run may have the additional time \ncoordinate with PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (“PJM”) and relevant stakeholders to prepare an \nFPA section 205 filing.  Silver Run further requests that the Commission shorten the answer \nperiod for this Motion to five days and issue an order on this Motion by August 13, 2026, so that \nSilver Run will have certainty regarding its obligations in advance of the August 17, 2026 \ndeadline to respond to the Show Cause Order. \n \n1 \n18 C.F.R. § 385.212 (2025). \n2  PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 195 FERC ¶ 61,211 (2026) (“Show Cause Order”)."},{"page":2,"startToken":221,"endToken":551,"text":"2 \nSilver Run appreciates the Commission’s attention and guidance on issues relating to the \ninterconnection of large loads, including data centers, to the FERC-jurisdictional transmission \nsystem.  Silver Run believes the potential tariff changes discussed in the Show Cause Order may \nprovide opportunities for PJM and the transmission owning members of PJM (“PJM TOs”) to \nintegrate large loads efficiently and further protect ratepayers across the PJM region from \ntransmission-related costs associated with speculative requests or large-load additions that do not \nmaterialize as planned.  Silver Run also agrees that speed to interconnection should be a priority \nas the stakeholders work through this process.  Silver Run respectfully moves to hold the \nobligation to respond to the Show Cause Order in abeyance in order to allow PJM and the PJM \nTOs sufficient time to ensure the proposed tariff revisions are workable, transparent, and \nresponsive to the Commission’s identified areas of concern. \nII. \nARGUMENT \nIn the Show Cause Order, the Commission states that it will consider requests for \nabeyances of up to 90 days, which should include both (1) a robust description of the content of a \npotential future filing under FPA section 205 and (2) a reasoned and specific explanation of \nwhen such a filing is expected to be made.3 \nSilver Run seeks additional time to ensure it can develop comprehensive, coordinated \ntariff amendments in accordance with the Commission’s directives.  The issues the Commission \nhas raised are complex and substantial.  Addressing the Show Cause Order will require \nsubstantial revisions to the PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff (“Tariff”)—potentially \nincluding new pro forma contract(s)—and the incorporation of study and application processes \ntailored to the provision of transmission service to Eligible Customers on behalf of large loads.  \nSilver Run must therefore closely coordinate with PJM and other PJM TOs as the parties draft \nnew provisions and, as applicable, revise existing provisions.  PJM is separately seeking an \nabeyance to engage in its stakeholder process, which requires a corresponding motion for \n \n3  Id. P 39."},{"page":3,"startToken":551,"endToken":956,"text":"3 \nabeyance for the PJM TOs.  Accordingly, Silver Run seeks an abeyance until November 16, \n2026,4 for it to submit its response to the Show Cause Order.5 \nA. \nProposed Tariff Revisions \nThe Show Cause Order sets out four preliminary findings.  Because the Commission is \naddressing its concerns related to co-located load in the separate and ongoing FPA section 206 \nproceeding in Docket No. EL25-49-000, the Show Cause Order is limited to the integration of \nlarge loads that are not co-located with generation, and it accordingly makes no preliminary \nfinding regarding the rates, terms, and conditions of service that apply to co-location \narrangements.6  First, the Commission preliminarily found that the PJM Tariff appears to be \nunjust and unreasonable because it lacks provisions that address, with sufficient clarity and \nconsistency, how PJM and/or the Transmission Owners will timely study — that is, within 60 to \n90 days of receiving the request — the provision of transmission service to Eligible Customers \non behalf of large loads.7  The Show Cause Order directs PJM and the Transmission Owners, to \nthe extent the matters addressed implicate aspects of the Tariff over which they hold the filing \nrights, either to explain whether the Tariff remains just and reasonable without an application \nprocess, study procedures, and ongoing operational requirements that address the unique \n \n4  Ninety (90) days from the response deadline is Sunday, November 15, 2026, and, therefore, such time \nperiod should end on November 16, 2026.  See 18 C.F.R. § 385.2007(a)(2) (stating that the last day of \nany time period is included in the time period, unless it is a Saturday or Sunday). \n5  At this time, Silver Run anticipates a single filing by PJM, in coordination with the other PJM TOs, \nwill be submitted in response to the Show Cause Order.  It may be necessary, however, for each \nFERC-jurisdictional transmission owner to submit supplemental filings in response to some of the \nbriefing questions included in the Show Cause Order. \n6 \nShow Cause Order, 195 FERC ¶ 61,211 at P 2; see also id. PP 3, 35 (directing PJM and the \nTransmission Owners to address four enumerated subject areas). \n7 \nId. P 41. The Commission identified four component deficiencies: the absence of a definition of large \nload, of an application process and study procedures, of ongoing operational requirements, and of pro \nforma provisions in a transmission service agreement memorializing those requirements. Id. PP 57-\n65."},{"page":4,"startToken":956,"endToken":1281,"text":"4 \ncharacteristics and challenges of providing transmission service to Eligible Customers on behalf \nof large loads, or to propose appropriate Tariff revisions.8 \nSecond, the Commission preliminarily found that the Tariff appears to be unjust and \nunreasonable because it lacks adequate mechanisms to mitigate the risk of cost shifting among \ntransmission customers, specifically (1) transparency regarding the assignment of Network \nUpgrades, and their associated costs, that are needed to provide transmission service to Eligible \nCustomers on behalf of large loads, and (2) a pro forma cost recovery agreement among PJM, \nthe relevant transmission owner, and the Eligible Customer taking transmission service on behalf \nof large loads that helps ensure that Eligible Customers bear the risk of, and are ultimately \nresponsible for, the costs incurred to provide that service.9  The Commission further stated that it \nappears reasonable for filers of formula rates to provide a separate workpaper in the annual \ninformational filing describing how payments made pursuant to such an agreement are reflected \nin the transmission owner’s transmission formula rate.10 \nThird, the Commission preliminarily found that the Tariff appears to be unjust and \nunreasonable because it does not include transmission services that reflect Eligible Customers \ntaking transmission service on behalf of flexible large loads that are willing and able to limit \ntheir use of the transmission system under certain conditions, and identified non-firm interim \nnetwork integration transmission service and permanent firm and non-firm contract demand \ntransmission service as the services whose absence PJM must address.11 \nFourth, the Commission preliminarily found that the Tariff appears to be unjust and \nunreasonable because it does not contain provisions allowing an interconnection customer to \nseek the generator interconnection service or services that reflect the operational dynamics of \nserving either an electrically proximate large load or a co-located load, as defined in the PJM Co-\n \n8  Id. P 43. \n9  Id. P 66; see also id. PP 71, 76-77, 81. \n10  Id. P 84. \n11  Id. PP 85-87."},{"page":5,"startToken":1281,"endToken":1607,"text":"5 \nLocation Order,12 with a high peak load, meaning a co-located load of 50 MW or greater.13  The \nShow Cause Order separately directs PJM alone, and not the Transmission Owners, to submit an \ninformational report addressing resource adequacy to serve new large loads.14 \nThe issues for PJM and PJM TOs to address are interconnected; therefore, successful \nFPA section 205 filings will require significant coordination among PJM, the PJM TOs, and \nother stakeholders, such as state regulators.  Silver Run understands that PJM plans to file \nresponsive tariff amendments in November (assuming its abeyance request is granted), and PJM \nTOs’ cooperation in developing this proposal is vital.  For example, the roles, responsibilities, \nand processes to interconnect and serve large loads taking new types of transmission services \nwill likely be dependent on modifications to existing services under the PJM Tariff.  PJM-\nspecific regional differences must also be considered. \nThrough the stakeholder process, Silver Run expects to propose revisions to the Tariff \nand related agreements addressing the application process, study procedures, and ongoing \noperational requirements applicable to Eligible Customers seeking transmission service on behalf \nof large loads.  Those revisions are expected to concern, among other matters, the definition of a \nlarge load; readiness and information requirements; the evaluation of alternative transmission \ntechnologies; a pro forma service agreement memorializing operational terms; transparency; cost \nrecovery, associated financial security, and rate treatment provisions intended to mitigate cost \nshifting among transmission customers; and a reasonable implementation period and effective \ndate designed to minimize disruption to existing commercial arrangements.  These matters \nremain under development and may evolve through coordination with PJM and stakeholders.  \nSilver Run will coordinate with PJM and complete internal approvals that may be necessary in \ntime to comply with the Commission’s directives by November 16, 2026. \n \n12  See PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 193 FERC ¶ 61,217 (2025) (“PJM Co-Location Order”). \n13  Show Cause Order, 195 FERC ¶ 61,211 at P 95. \n14  Id. PP 4, 36, 102, 104."},{"page":6,"startToken":1607,"endToken":1968,"text":"6 \nB. \nBriefing Questions \nThe Commission also identifies several issues for further briefing.15  Silver Run \nunderstands that, if the Commission grants the requested full abeyance, the deadline to respond \nto the briefing questions will likewise be held in abeyance.16  Silver Run believes an abeyance is \nappropriate as to the briefing questions as they are wholly interrelated with the issues to be \naddressed in the forthcoming FPA section 205 filing, as described above. \nIII. \nREQUEST FOR SHORTENED ANSWER PERIOD AND EXPEDITED \nTREATMENT \nSilver Run respectfully requests that the Commission shorten the answer period for this \nMotion to five days and grant expedited treatment so that it may issue an order on this Motion by \nAugust 13, 2026.  Rule 213(d)(1) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure provides \nthat an answer to a motion must be made within 15 days after the motion is filed unless the \nCommission orders otherwise.17  The Commission should order otherwise here, for three \nreasons. \nFirst, a shortened answer period and expedited action will provide regulatory certainty in \nadvance of a deadline that is now imminent.  The Show Cause Order directs PJM and the PJM \nTOs to respond within 60 days of issuance, which is August 17, 2026—14 days from the date of \nthis filing.18  If the ordinary 15-day answer period applies, the Commission will not be in a \nposition to rule on this Motion until after Silver Run’s response is already due.  Silver Run would \nthen be required to divert resources to preparing a merits response to the Show Cause Order \nrather than to the coordinated work with PJM and stakeholders that is necessary to produce the \n \n15  Id. Section IV. \n16  Id. P 39 (stating that “the deadline to respond to this order” for “all or certain aspects of this FPA \nsection 206 proceeding” will be held in abeyance for up to 90 days upon a successful petition by a \ntransmission owner). \n17  18 C.F.R. § 385.213(d)(1). \n18  Show Cause Order, 195 FERC ¶ 61,211 at P 35 & Ordering Para. (B).  Sixty days from the June 18, \n2026 issuance date is Monday, August 17, 2026."},{"page":7,"startToken":1968,"endToken":2385,"text":"7 \ncontemplated FPA section 205 filing.  The need for certainty is heightened here, because the \nCommission has emphasized that it will not grant abeyances reflexively.19 \nSecond, interested entities have been on notice of the need to respond to abeyance \nrequests promptly.  The Commission expressly contemplated such requests in the Show Cause \nOrder and directed that they be submitted within 45 days of issuance so as to allow the \nCommission time to act on them.20  Because the Commission itself contemplated that an \nabeyance request could be filed as late as 15 days before the response deadline, any entity with \nan interest in this proceeding has been on notice since June 18, 2026, that it would need to \nrespond to such a request on an expedited basis.  A five-day answer period is therefore consistent \nwith the schedule the Commission established and will not prejudice any participant.21 \nThird, expedited action will promote administrative efficiency.  PJM has separately \nrequested that the Commission hold this proceeding in abeyance.22  The two requests are \ninterrelated.  Silver Run’s ability to develop and submit an FPA section 205 filing depends on \nthe outcome of the PJM stakeholder process that PJM’s request is designed to accommodate, and \nSilver Run does not administer a stakeholder process of its own through which the issues raised \nin the Show Cause Order could be resolved independently.  Ruling on both requests together as \nclosely as practicable, and in advance of the August 17, 2026 deadline, will avoid the prospect \nthat Silver Run is held to a merits deadline while the regional process on which its FPA section \n205 filing depends remains underway. \n \n19  Id. P 39. \n20  Id.  The Commission directed that requests for a full or partial abeyance be submitted “within 45 days \nof issuance of this order, to allow time for the Commission to act on the abeyance request.”  Id.  45 \ndays from June 18, 2026 was Sunday, August 2, so under Rule 2007 of the Commission’s regulations, \nthis Motion, filed August 3, is timely.  18 C.F.R. § 385.2007(a)(1)-(2). \n21  Five days from the August 3, 2026 filing date is Saturday, August 8, 2026, which Rule 2007 moves to \nMonday, August 10, 2026.  Id. § 385.2007(a)(1)-(2). \n22    Motion of PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. to Hold Proceeding in Abeyance and Request for Shortened \nAnswer Period and Expedited Treatment, Docket No. EL26-67-000, at 8-10 (July 28, 2026) \n(requesting a five-day answer period and an order by August 6, 2026)."},{"page":8,"startToken":2385,"endToken":2500,"text":"8 \nIV. \nCONCLUSION \nFor the reasons described above, Silver Run respectfully requests that the Commission (i) \ngrant this Motion and hold this proceeding in abeyance for 90 days beginning August 17, 2026, \nand extend Silver Run’s deadline to respond in full to the Show Cause Order to November 16, \n2026; (ii) shorten the answer period for this Motion to five days; and (iii) grant expedited \ntreatment and issue an order on this Motion by August 13, 2026.   \n \nRespectfully submitted, \n \n/s/ Blake R. Urban \nBlake R. Urban \nSenior Regulatory Counsel \n16150 Main Circle Drive, Suite 310 \nChesterfield, MO 63017 \nTelephone: \n(636) 231-0475 \nEmail:  \nburban@lspower.com \nAttorney for \nSilver Run Electric, LLC \n \n \nDated: August 3, 2026"},{"page":9,"startToken":2500,"endToken":2603,"text":"CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE \nUnder Rule 2010 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 C.F.R. § \n385.2010 (2025), I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing MOTION FOR \nABEYANCE AND REQUEST FOR SHORTENED ANSWER PERIOD AND \nEXPEDITED TREATMENT OF SILVER RUN ELECTRIC, LLC upon each person \ndesignated on the official service list compiled by the Secretary in this proceeding. \nDated at Silver Spring, Maryland, this 3rd day of August 2026. \n \n/s/ Seth Yeazel \nSeth Yeazel \nAssociate Regulatory Counsel \nLS Power Development, LLC \n16150 Main Circle Drive, Suite 310 \nChesterfield, MO 63017 \nTel: (240) 904-5109 \nsyeazel@lspower.com"}],"sections":[{"p":1,"at":0,"title":"Opening text","method":"opening text","endPage":1,"endAt":270,"startToken":0,"endToken":38},{"p":1,"at":270,"title":"I. INTRODUCTION","method":"printed heading","endPage":1,"endAt":274,"startToken":38,"endToken":39},{"p":1,"at":274,"title":"INTRODUCTION","method":"printed heading","endPage":2,"endAt":1007,"startToken":39,"endToken":368},{"p":2,"at":1007,"title":"II. ARGUMENT","method":"printed heading","endPage":3,"endAt":156,"startToken":368,"endToken":580},{"p":3,"at":156,"title":"A. Proposed Tariff Revisions","method":"printed heading","endPage":6,"endAt":3,"startToken":580,"endToken":1608},{"p":6,"at":3,"title":"B. Briefing Questions","method":"printed heading","endPage":6,"endAt":477,"startToken":1608,"endToken":1681},{"p":6,"at":477,"title":"III. REQUEST FOR SHORTENED ANSWER PERIOD AND EXPEDITED","method":"printed heading","endPage":8,"endAt":3,"startToken":1681,"endToken":2386},{"p":8,"at":3,"title":"IV. CONCLUSION","method":"printed heading","endPage":8,"endAt":8,"startToken":2386,"endToken":2387},{"p":8,"at":8,"title":"CONCLUSION","method":"printed heading","endPage":9,"endAt":0,"startToken":2387,"endToken":2500},{"p":9,"at":0,"title":"CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE","method":"printed heading","endPage":9,"endAt":654,"startToken":2500,"endToken":2603}]}