{"document":{"slug":"filing-20260804-5159","title":"Answer of Constellation Energy Generation, LLC in response to Transmission Owner's 07/20/2026 Request for Clarification","issued":"2026-08-04","accession":"20260804-5159","docket":"EL26-67-000","group":"PJM filings","filer":"Constellation Energy Generation, LLC","kind":"answer","file":"sources/originals/20260804-5159_01.pdf","url":"https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/filelist?accession_Number=20260804-5159","sha256":"668810a3f180671270107fa324b466fc7b3f94f5e0c3a0e51f317e19472a1ae7","pages":4,"tokens":1105,"emptyPages":[]},"pages":[{"page":1,"startToken":0,"endToken":454,"text":"UNITED STATES OF AMERICA \nBEFORE THE \nFEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION \nPJM Interconnection, L.L.C.\n) \nDocket No. EL26-67-000 \nANSWER OF CONSTELLATION ENERGY GENERATION, LLC \nConstellation submits this answer1 to respond to the Transmission Owners’ Request for \nClarification2 of the Large Load Show Cause Order.3 The Transmission Owners also request \nrehearing in the above-captioned proceeding, and although Constellation disagrees with the \nTransmission Owners’ rehearing arguments, including those in Exelon and FirstEnergy’s joint \nrehearing request,4 Constellation does not respond here because Exelon and FirstEnergy’s \narguments are premature and barred by Rule 713 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and \nProcedure.5 \nThe Transmission Owners request that with respect to the obligation to define “rates, terms, \nand conditions applicable to interconnection customers serving ‘electrically proximate large load’ \n \n1 Constellation Energy Generation, LLC (“Constellation”) files this answer pursuant to Rule 213 of the Commission’s \nRules of Practice and Procedure. See 18 C.F.R. § 385.213. The Commission should accept Constellation’s answer \nto the Indicated PJM Transmission Owners’ requests for clarification because “[a]nswers to requests for \nclarifications are not barred by Rule 713 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.” Savion, LLC v. \nPJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 194 FERC ¶ 61,240, at P 16 n.40 (2026). \n2 Request for Clarification, or in the Alternative, Rehearing of the Indicated PJM Transmission Owners (July 20, 2026) \n(“Transmission Owners’ Request for Clarification”). The Indicated Transmission Owners that filed the Transmission \nOwners’ Request for Clarification are a subset of Transmission Owners in PJM, excluding Old Dominion Electric \nCooperative, Public Service Electric and Gas Company and Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative, for example. \n3 PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 195 FERC ¶ 61,211 (2026) (“Large Load Show Cause Order”). \n4 Request for Rehearing of Exelon Corporation and FirstEnergy Service Company (July 20, 2026).  \n5 18 C.F.R. § 385.713(a)(1) (stating rehearing may be requested “of a final Commission decision or other final order”); \nid. § 385.713(a)(2) (“a final decision in any proceeding … includes … any other action designated as a final decision \nby the Commission for purposes of rehearing”); Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 188 FERC ¶ 61,211, at \nP 12 (2024) (denying request for rehearing where “Commission did not make any final decision or determination in \nthe Show Cause Order on whether the OATTs of the Responding RTOs/ISOs are unjust, unreasonable, or unduly \ndiscriminatory or preferential”); see also id. (“Where, as here, Commission action is not final and is to be succeeded \nby further Commission action, a request for rehearing may be dismissed”) (citation omitted); La. PSC v. Sys. Energy \nRes., Inc., 182 FERC ¶ 61,080, at P 6 (2023) (same); NorthWestern Corporation, 166 FERC ¶ 61,193, at P 7 (2019) \n(same)."},{"page":2,"startToken":454,"endToken":839,"text":"2 \nor co-located load”6 the Commission clarify that they will be permitted to propose and support a \ndefinition that is not based on the location of facilities relative to the Point of Interconnection, such \nas the Point of Change in Ownership.7 The Commission should not grant this clarification with \nrespect to Co-Located Loads, as it has already ruled twice that the Point of Interconnection and \nnot the Point of Change in Ownership is the appropriate point.8 This request for clarification is a \nthinly-veiled collateral attack on the Commission’s previous rulings in Docket Numbers ER26-\n1088-000 and ER26-1479-000. \nIn addition, the Commission should clarify that any eligibility requirements PJM and the \nTransmission Owners propose in their initial filings must not be so prescriptive as to improperly \ndisqualify large loads, foreclosing any benefits that help avoid unnecessary transmission upgrades \nand reduce strain on the grid. The Commission should also clarify that Transmission Owners may \nnot use the Point of Change in Ownership, or any other point of reference, to define “electrically \nproximate large load” in a manner that likewise undermines speedy interconnection or avoidance \nof unnecessary transmission upgrades. As the Co-Located Load proceeding demonstrates,9 clear \ndirection from the Commission is necessary to ensure that PJM and Transmission Owners propose \nterms and conditions that facilitate, rather than frustrate, large load interconnections. \n \n6 Transmission Owners’ Request for Clarification at 2. \n7 Id. at 6-8. \n8 See June 2026 Co-Location Order, 195 FERC ¶ 61,209 at P 307 (denying PJM’s proposal to replace “Point of \nInterconnection” with “Point of Change in Ownership,” stating “[w]e note that no party, including PJM, sought \nrehearing or clarification of this directive, let alone the definition, in response to the December Order.”); PJM \nInterconnection, L.L.C., 195 FERC ¶ 61,030, at P 27 (2026) (same). \n9 See generally Reply Brief of Constellation Energy Generation, LLC, Docket No. EL25-49-000, et al., at 13 (Mar. 25, \n2026) (“PJM and Indicated Transmission Owners propose provisions that would restrict, delay or otherwise \ndiscourage the use of Interim NITS and Contract Demand Services.”); Response Brief of Constellation Energy \nGeneration, Docket No. EL25-49-000, et al., at 2 (“Without delay, the Commission should reject and direct further \ncompliance on PJM’s and the Transmission Owners’ proposals that restrict, discriminate, eliminate, or otherwise \ndiscourage the new transmission services.”)."},{"page":3,"startToken":839,"endToken":1023,"text":"3 \nCONCLUSION \nFor the reasons stated above, Constellation respectfully requests that the Commission deny \nthe Transmission Owners’ Request for Clarification, but if the Commission nonetheless grants the \nrequest, it should make clear that PJM and the Transmission Owners should propose terms that \nencourage the use of new transmission services and the speedy interconnection of large loads. \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n    Respectfully submitted, \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n    /s/ Paul F. Wight \n \n \nAugust 4, 2026 \nCarrie Hill Allen \nSr. Vice President & Deputy General Counsel \nSeth T. Lucia \nAssistant General Counsel \nConstellation Energy Generation, LLC \n250 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Suite 760 \nWashington, D.C. 20001 \ncarrie.allen@constellation.com \nseth.lucia@constellation.com \n  \nChristopher A. Wilson \nVice President, Federal Regulatory Affairs \nConstellation Energy Generation, LLC \n250 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Suite 760 \nWashington, D.C. 20001 \n202-347-7500 \nFERCe-filings1@constellation.com \n \nPaul F. Wight \nCarolyn E. Clarkin \nDLA Piper LLP (US) \n500 Eighth Street NW \nWashington, D.C. 20004 \n703-773-4058 \npaul.wight@us.dlapiper.com  \ncarolyn.clarkin@us.dlapiper.com  \n \nSophia Browning \nDLA Piper LLP (US) \n4365 Executive Drive \nSuite 1100 \nSan Diego, CA 92121 \n858-677-1455 \nsophia.browning@us.dlapiper.com \n \nCounsel for Constellation Energy \nGeneration, LLC"},{"page":4,"startToken":1023,"endToken":1105,"text":"CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE \nI hereby certify that I have on this 4th day of August 2026, caused to be served a copy of \nthe foregoing upon all parties on the service lists in these proceedings in accordance with the \nrequirement of Rule 2010 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 C.F.R. \n§ 385.2010 (2026). \n/s/ Sophia Browning \n \n \nSophia Browning \nDLA Piper LLP (US) \n4365 Executive Drive \nSuite 1100 \nSan Diego, CA 92121 \n858-677-1455 \nsophia.browning@us.dlapiper.com"}],"sections":[{"p":1,"at":0,"title":"Opening text","method":"opening text","endPage":1,"endAt":131,"startToken":0,"endToken":18},{"p":1,"at":131,"title":"ANSWER OF CONSTELLATION ENERGY GENERATION, LLC","method":"PDF bookmark","endPage":3,"endAt":3,"startToken":18,"endToken":840},{"p":3,"at":3,"title":"CONCLUSION","method":"PDF bookmark","endPage":4,"endAt":0,"startToken":840,"endToken":1023},{"p":4,"at":0,"title":"CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE","method":"PDF bookmark","endPage":4,"endAt":484,"startToken":1023,"endToken":1105}]}