{"document":{"slug":"order-el26-67-001-pjm-rehearing","title":"Order dismissing requests for rehearing and clarification of the June 18, 2026 PJM show-cause order","issued":"2026-09-21","accession":"20260921-3020","docket":"EL26-67-001","group":"Six large-load show-cause orders, one per RTO/ISO","filer":"FERC","kind":"order","file":"sources/originals/20260921-3020_order.pdf","url":"https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/filelist?accession_number=20260921-3020","sha256":"42f96f55bb25fa92320a781422e652ba3fd7730327d84f540a5cf0899fb314e3","pages":11,"tokens":3812,"emptyPages":[]},"pages":[{"page":1,"startToken":0,"endToken":176,"text":"196 FERC ¶ 61,214 \nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA \nFEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION \n \nBefore Commissioners:  Laura V. Swett, Chairman; \n                                        David Rosner, Lindsay S. See, \n                                        Judy W. Chang, and David LaCerte. \n \nPJM Interconnection, L.L.C. \nAEP Appalachian Transmission Company, Inc. \nAEP Indiana Michigan Transmission Company, Inc. \nAEP Kentucky Transmission Company, Inc. \nAEP Ohio Transmission Company, Inc. \nAEP West Virginia Transmission Company, Inc. \nAmerican Transmission Systems, Incorporated \nAppalachian Power Company \nAtlantic City Electric Company \nBaltimore Gas and Electric Company \nCommonwealth Edison Company \nCommonwealth Edison Company of Indiana, Inc. \nDayton Power and Light Company \nDelmarva Power & Light Company \nDuke Energy Kentucky, Inc. \nDuke Energy Ohio, Inc. \nDuquesne Light Company \nEssential Power Rock Springs, LLC \nHudson Transmission Partners, LLC \nIndiana Michigan Power Company \nJersey Central Power & Light Company \nKentucky Power Company \nKeystone Appalachian Transmission Company \nKingsport Power Company \nLinden VFT, LLC \nMid-Atlantic Interstate Transmission, LLC \nMonongahela Power Company \nNeptune Regional Transmission System, LLC \nNextEra Energy Transmission MidAtlantic Indiana, Inc. \nOhio Power Company \nOhio Valley Electric Corporation \nOld Dominion Electric Cooperative \nPECO Energy Company \nPPL Electric Utilities Corporation \nDocket No. EL26-67-001"},{"page":2,"startToken":176,"endToken":493,"text":"Docket No. EL26-67-001 \n- 2 - \nThe Potomac Edison Company \nPotomac Electric Power Company \nPublic Service Electric and Gas Company \nRockland Electric Company \nSilver Run Electric, LLC \nTrans-Allegheny Interstate Line Company \nTransource West Virginia, LLC \nUGI Utilities, Inc. \nVirginia Electric and Power Company \nWheeling Power Company \n \n \nORDER DISMISSING REQUESTS FOR REHEARING AND CLARIFICATION \n \n(Issued September 21, 2026) \n \n \nOn June 18, 2026, the Commission issued an order under section 206 of the Federal \nPower Act (FPA)1 initiating a show cause proceeding directing PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. \n(PJM) and the Transmission Owners2 to explain why PJM’s Open Access Transmission \nTariff (Tariff) remains just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential \nwithout certain Tariff provisions addressing large loads and co-located loads, or propose \nTariff revisions addressing the Commission’s concerns.3  On July 17, 2026, the \nPennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate (PA OCA) filed a request for clarification or, in \nthe alternative, rehearing, and Joint Consumer Advocates4 filed a request for clarification \nand rehearing.  On July 20, 2026, Eolian, L.P. (Eolian) and Indicated PJM Transmission \nOwners5 each filed a request for clarification or, in the alternative, rehearing, and Exelon \n \n1 16 U.S.C. § 824e. \n2 Transmission Owners refers to the entities listed in the caption to this order.  \n3 PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 195 FERC ¶ 61,211, at PP 3, 35, errata notice,       \n196 FERC ¶ 61,122 (2026) (Show Cause Order).  Capitalized terms not otherwise defined \nherein have the meanings ascribed to them in the Tariff. \n4 Joint Consumer Advocates consist of:  The Maryland Office of People’s Counsel, \nthe Ohio Consumers’ Counsel, the Delaware Division of the Public Advocate, and the \nOffice of the Illinois Attorney General. \n5 Indicated PJM Transmission Owners are:  American Electric Power Service \nCorporation on behalf of its affiliates, Appalachian Power Company, Indiana Michigan \nPower Company, Kentucky Power Company, Kingsport Power Company, Ohio Power \nCompany, Wheeling Power Company, AEP Appalachian Transmission Company, Inc.,"},{"page":3,"startToken":493,"endToken":873,"text":"Docket No. EL26-67-001 \n- 3 - \nCorporation and FirstEnergy Services Company (collectively, Exelon/FirstEnergy) \nseparately filed a request for rehearing.  On August 4, 2026, Constellation Energy \nGeneration, LLC (Constellation) filed an answer to the Indicated PJM Transmission \nOwners’ request for clarification. \n \nPursuant to Allegheny Defense Project v. FERC,6 the rehearing requests filed in this \nproceeding may be deemed denied by operation of law.  However, we are dismissing the \nrequests for rehearing and clarification, as discussed below. \nI. \nShow Cause Order \n \nIn the Show Cause Order, the Commission found that PJM’s existing Tariff appears to \nbe unjust, unreasonable, or unduly discriminatory or preferential because it lacks certain \nprovisions related to large loads and co-located loads and instituted a show cause proceeding \npursuant to FPA section 206.7  The Commission directed PJM and the Transmission Owners, \nwithin 60 days of the date of the Show Cause Order, i.e., by August 17, 2026, to either \nexplain why PJM’s Tariff remains just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or \npreferential without certain Tariff provisions addressing large loads and co-located loads, or \npropose Tariff revisions addressing the Commission’s concerns.8 \n \nSpecifically, the Commission made preliminary findings that PJM’s existing Tariff \nappears to be unjust, unreasonable, and unduly discriminatory or preferential because it \n \nAEP Indiana Michigan Transmission Company, Inc., AEP Kentucky Transmission \nCompany, Inc., AEP Ohio Transmission Company, Inc., and AEP West Virginia \nTransmission Company, Inc.; The Dayton Power and Light Company; Dominion Energy \nServices, Inc. on behalf of Virginia Electric and Power Company; Duke Energy Business \nServices, LLC for Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc. and Duke Energy Ohio, Inc.; Duquesne \nLight Company; East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc.; Exelon Corporation on behalf of \nits affiliates Atlantic City Electric Company, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, \nCommonwealth Edison Company, Commonwealth Edison Company of Indiana, Inc., \nDelmarva Power & Light Company, PECO Energy Company, and Potomac Electric Power \nCompany; FirstEnergy Service Company, on behalf of its affiliates American Transmission \nSystems, Incorporated, Jersey Central Power & Light Company, Mid-Atlantic Interstate \nTransmission LLC, The Potomac Edison Company, Monongahela Power Company, \nKeystone Appalachian Transmission Company, and Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line \nCompany; PPL Electric Utilities Corporation; and Rockland Electric Company.   \n6 964 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (en banc).   \n7 Show Cause Order, 195 FERC ¶ 61,211 at PP 3, 35. \n8 Id. P 3."},{"page":4,"startToken":873,"endToken":1297,"text":"Docket No. EL26-67-001 \n- 4 - \nlacks provisions addressing:  (1) the application process, study procedures, and ongoing \noperational requirements that apply to Eligible Customers seeking transmission service on \nbehalf of large loads;9 (2) additional transparency concerning the Network Upgrade costs to \nprovide transmission service to Eligible Customers on behalf of large loads, a pro forma \ncost recovery agreement to mitigate the risk of cost shifting among transmission customers, \nand a mechanism to ensure such payments are appropriately credited toward transmission \nowners’ transmission revenue requirements consistent with the Commission’s cost-of-\nservice regulations;10 (3) transmission services that reflect Eligible Customers taking \ntransmission service on behalf of flexible large loads that are willing and able to limit their \nuse of the transmission system under certain conditions; and (4) the rates, terms, and \nconditions of service applicable to interconnection customers serving electrically proximate \nlarge load or co-located load.11 \n \nOn August 14, 2026, the Commission granted motions for abeyance filed by PJM \nand certain transmission owners, such that responses to the Show Cause Order will be due \non November 16, 2026, and answers to responses will be due on December 16, 2026.12  The \nCommission also stated that if PJM or the Transmission Owners submit an FPA section 205 \nfiling addressing the Commission’s preliminary findings in the Show Cause Order on or \nbefore November 16, 2026, then the obligation of the respondent(s) who have made such an \nFPA section 205 filing to file a response to the Show Cause Order will be suspended, and \nthe show cause proceeding will continue to be held in abeyance pending further \nCommission directive in the show cause proceeding.13 \n \n9 While the Commission stated that “it appears that it would be reasonable to define a \nlarge load as a new, commercial or industrial customer, located at a single site behind one or \nmore points of interconnection, and that has a peak load of 50 MW or greater, interconnects \nto the transmission system at a voltage level of greater than 69 kV, and is not part of a      \nco-location arrangement,” the Commission also stated that PJM could propose Tariff \nrevisions establishing its own definition of large load.  Id. P 58. \n10 The Commission preliminarily found that the PJM Tariff lacks adequate \nmechanisms to mitigate the risks of cost shifting among transmission customers, which may \nresult in unjust and unreasonable rates for transmission service.  Id. PP 66, 77.  \n11 Id. PP 3, 35.   \n12 PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 196 FERC ¶ 61,129, at PP 8-9 (2026) (Abeyance \nOrder). \n13 Id. P 10."},{"page":5,"startToken":1297,"endToken":1641,"text":"Docket No. EL26-67-001 \n- 5 - \nII. \nClarification and Rehearing Requests and Answer \nA. \nEolian Request for Clarification or, in the Alternative, Rehearing \n \nEolian requests clarification or, in the alternative, rehearing to provide that \nelectrically proximate generation may access permanent load-limited generator \ninterconnection service where it is equally capable of enabling the large load to limit its \nwithdrawals from the transmission system on a long-term basis without creating system \nreliability risks.14  Eolian contends that the Show Cause Order limits PJM’s ability to put in \nplace a replacement rate that will ensure just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory \nrates by not requiring or by limiting its ability to adopt a permanent load-limited generator \ninterconnection service for front-of-the-meter resources that are capable of enabling large \nloads to limit their withdrawals from the transmission system under certain conditions on a \nlong-term basis without resulting reliability concerns.15  Eolian argues that this limitation \nwould create a significant barrier to large loads’ ability to use the new transmission services \ndirected under the Show Cause Order, and therefore would significantly impair the ability \nof the Show Cause Order to ensure just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory \nrates.16   \n \nEolian also requests rehearing or clarification to clarify that any flexibility to tailor \nthe generator interconnection reforms to the unique circumstances of the region must be \npaired with an obligation for PJM to show that the reforms will enable a pathway for \nsignificant generating capacity to provide load-limited interconnection.17  Eolian argues that \nthe Show Cause Order includes some language that could be interpreted such that it gives \nflexibility to PJM to adopt minimal reforms that do not achieve the objectives of ensuring \njust and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory rates.18  \n \n14 Eolian Request at 3, 4-14.  Eolian states that load-limited generator interconnection \nservice “is premised on the generator’s commitment to limiting its output to match the \nconsumption of the load it is supporting.”  Id., attach. A (Aff. of Andrew Levitt) at 3. \n15 Id. at 3-4. \n16 Id. at 4-5. \n17 Id. at 16. \n18 Id. at 3-4, 14-16."},{"page":6,"startToken":1641,"endToken":2009,"text":"Docket No. EL26-67-001 \n- 6 - \nB. \nIndicated PJM Transmission Owners Request for Clarification, or in the \nAlternative, Rehearing \n \nIndicated PJM Transmission Owners request that the Commission clarify that the \ndefinition of “large load” proposed in the Show Cause Order, including the 50 MW \nthreshold, does not prevent PJM and the Transmission Owners from proposing and \nsupporting additional service-specific criteria for large load customers relating to the types \nof services contemplated in the Show Cause Order.19  Indicated PJM Transmission    \nOwners contend that it may not be appropriate to offer identical services to all large load \ncustomers.20  Indicated PJM Transmission Owners contend that if the Commission declines \nto make this clarification, the Commission should grant rehearing.  Indicated PJM \nTransmission Owners argue that requiring a one-size-fits-all approach for all large load \ncustomers that meet the definition of “large load” proposed in the Show Cause Order is \nlikely to be over-inclusive and unduly discriminatory.21   \n \nIndicated PJM Transmission Owners also request that the Commission clarify that \nPJM and the Transmission Owners will be permitted to propose and support definitions of \n“large load” and “electrically proximate large load” that are not based on the location of \nfacilities relative to the point of interconnection and that they have the flexibility to propose \nother points of reference such as the point of change of ownership.22  If the Commission \ndeclines to grant this clarification, Indicated PJM Transmission Owners seek rehearing.  \nIndicated PJM Transmission Owners contend that, as PJM and the Transmission Owners \nhave explained in the PJM co-located load proceeding, there are significant problems with \nadopting such definitions based on facilities on the customer-side of the point of \ninterconnection, including potentially encouraging gaming that will undermine the efficient \nand reliable interconnection of large loads.   \nC. \nJoint Consumer Advocates Request for Clarification and Rehearing \n \nJoint Consumer Advocates request that the Commission clarify the standard that the \nCommission will apply to assess cost recovery agreements.23  Joint Consumer Advocates \nargue that to be just and reasonable, a cost recovery agreement must require the Eligible \n \n19 Indicated PJM Transmission Owners Request at 3, 5. \n20 Id. at 5. \n21 Id. at 3-4, 6.  \n22 Id. at 3, 6-8. \n23 Joint Consumer Advocates Request at 4, 8, 26-27."},{"page":7,"startToken":2009,"endToken":2435,"text":"Docket No. EL26-67-001 \n- 7 - \nCustomer seeking transmission service on behalf of large load to pay the full incremental \ncost of the Network Upgrades needed to accommodate the large load. \n \nJoint Consumer Advocates also request that the Commission clarify that transmission \nowners must immediately credit revenue received under cost recovery agreements to the other \ntransmission customers in the relevant zone.24  Joint Consumer Advocates state that credits \nagainst a transmission owner’s revenue requirement in a later year flow to whichever \ntransmission customers are in the zone at that time and not to the customers who bore the cost \nshift when the costs of the relevant Network Upgrade entered the revenue requirement.25 \n \nNoting that much of the Show Cause Order is preliminary, Joint Consumer Advocates \nstate that they are concerned that it may be construed to contain final determinations about \njurisdiction and a definitive statement about the scope of the Commission’s duty to address \nthe risk of cost shifting among transmission customers.  Joint Consumer Advocates state that \nthey seek rehearing of only those determinations that could be read as final.26  Specifically, \nJoint Consumer Advocates argue that the Commission erred by recognizing a duty to address \nthe risk of cost shifting among transmission customers while failing to remedy the actual cost \nshifts that the PJM Tariff guarantees in its cost allocation method for Network Upgrades for \nlarge loads.27  Joint Consumer Advocates also argue that the Commission erred by finding \nthat transparency will enable state regulators to “sub-allocate” Network Upgrade costs to \nretail customers “as they see fit” without considering that the PJM Tariff fixes the charges \neach transmission customer must pay.28  Joint Consumer Advocates further argue that the \nCommission erred in concluding that its approach “respect[s] the cooperative federalism \napproach established under the FPA” because it could assign to states a redistribution of \nCommission-set charges and could invite states to approve transmission rates that conflict  \nwith the PJM Tariff.29 \n \n24 Id. at 4, 8-9, 27-28. \n25 Id. at 8-9. \n26 Id. at 4-5, 15-16. \n27 Id. at 2, 6, 14-18, 20.  Joint Consumer Advocates state that their request for \nrehearing targets cost shifts due to Network Upgrades designated as Supplemental Projects \nor that are included in the Regional Transmission Expansion Plan and whose costs are \nallocated pursuant to Schedule 12 of the PJM Tariff.  Id. 15 n.30. \n28 Id. at 6-7 (citing Show Cause Order, 195 FERC ¶ 61,211 at P 70); see also id. at \n19-26. \n29 Id. at 7 (citing Show Cause Order, 195 FERC ¶ 61,211 at P 70)."},{"page":8,"startToken":2435,"endToken":2797,"text":"Docket No. EL26-67-001 \n- 8 - \nD. \nPA OCA Request for Clarification or, in the Alternative, Rehearing \n \nPA OCA requests that the Commission clarify that:  (1) the pro forma cost recovery \nagreements are partial and nonexclusive solutions to the wholesale transmission cost \nallocation problem;30 (2) existing regional cost allocation methods may result in unjust and \nunreasonable wholesale transmission cost shifting between Eligible Customers serving large \nloads and other transmission customers because, under existing methods, other transmission \ncustomers pay the costs of Network Upgrades that they do not cause or benefit from;31 and \n(3) parties to this proceeding may develop an actionable record on the regional wholesale \ncost allocation methods for the costs of Network Upgrades caused by large loads.32 \n \nTo the extent the Commission denies clarification, PA OCA requests rehearing.33  \nPA OCA argues that, to the extent the Commission’s determinations are final, the Show \nCause Order violates the FPA and Administrative Procedure Act34 because the Commission \nfailed to:  (1) sufficiently address the “wholesale transmission cost-shifting problem caused \nby large loads” identified in the Show Cause Order;35 and (2) permit record development to \nremedy the unjust and unreasonable cost-shifting identified in the Show Cause Order.36 \nE. \nExelon/FirstEnergy Request for Rehearing \n \nExelon/FirstEnergy argue that the Commission failed to meet its FPA section 206 \nburden to show that PJM’s existing rate is unjust and unreasonable because:  (1) there is no \nevidence in the record that flexible large loads or any other large loads are unable to obtain \nreliable, timely, and reasonably priced service using the existing Network Service \nconstruct;37 (2) the Commission did not explain its departure from Commission precedent \n \n30 PA OCA Request at 1-2, 4-5, 10-14. \n31 Id. at 4, 10. \n32 Id. at 2, 5-6, 14-20.  PA OCA contends that the record should encompass all \naspects of wholesale transmission cost shifting caused by large loads in PJM, including but \nnot limited to the use of expansion rates and crediting mechanisms.  Id. at 2. \n33 Id. at 2-3, 6-10. \n34 5 U.S.C. §§ 551-559. \n35 PA OCA Request at 2-3, 6-8, 20-22. \n36 Id. at 3, 8-10, 22-26. \n37 Exelon/FirstEnergy Request at 3-4, 10-13."},{"page":9,"startToken":2797,"endToken":3113,"text":"Docket No. EL26-67-001 \n- 9 - \nregarding the reasonableness of existing Network Service;38 and (3) embedded transmission \nsystem costs should be charged because flexible large loads and other large loads rely upon \nthe entire embedded transmission system to serve their full gross load.39 \n \nExelon/FirstEnergy also argue that the Commission failed to meet its FPA section \n206 burden to show that its proposed replacement rate is just and reasonable.40  Specifically, \nExelon/FirstEnergy argue that:  (1) allowing special treatment for flexible large loads \nviolates the FPA’s requirement that there be no undue preference or unreasonable  \ndifference in rates between classes of service;41 (2) the Commission’s emphasis on control \ntechnologies and protection systems is in tension with the Commission’s open access \npolicies and the Commission erred in failing to account for the fact that protective systems \ncan and have failed;42 (3) the Commission abandons a main principle of service to load, \nwhich is that customers share in the embedded costs of the transmission system;43 (4) \ncontract demand service will not promote efficiency or change siting;44 and (5) the \nCommission’s disregard of reliability considerations underscores that its proposed \nreplacement rate is not just and reasonable.45  Finally, Exelon/FirstEnergy assert that the \nCommission exceeded its jurisdiction by violating the major questions doctrine and \ninfringing on state retail authority.46  \nF. \nConstellation Answer \n \nConstellation argues that the Commission should deny Indicated PJM Transmission \nOwners’ request for clarification regarding the definition of “electrically proximate large \nload” with respect to co-located loads consistent with the Commission’s prior findings that \nthe point of interconnection—not the point of change in ownership—is the appropriate \n \n38 Id. at 4-6, 13-19. \n39 Id. at 6, 19-21. \n40 Id. at 6-8; 21-27. \n41 Id. at 6-7, 21-24. \n42 Id. at 7, 24-25. \n43 Id. at 7-8. \n44 Id. at 8, 25-26. \n45 Id. at 8, 26-27. \n46 Id. at 9, 27-31."},{"page":10,"startToken":3113,"endToken":3457,"text":"Docket No. EL26-67-001 \n- 10 - \npoint.47  Constellation contends that Indicated PJM Transmission Owners’ request for \nclarification is a “thinly-veiled collateral attack” on the Commission’s previous rulings in \nDocket Nos. ER26-1088-000 and ER26-1479-000.48  Constellation further argues that the \nCommission should clarify that:  (1) any eligibility requirements PJM and the Transmission \nOwners propose in their initial filings must not be so prescriptive as to improperly \ndisqualify large loads, foreclosing any benefits that help avoid unnecessary transmission \nupgrades and reduce strain on the grid; and (2) Transmission Owners may not use the point \nof change in ownership, or any other point of reference, to define “electrically proximate \nlarge load” in a manner that likewise undermines speedy interconnection or avoidance of \nunnecessary transmission upgrades.49 \nIII. \nDiscussion \nA. \nProcedural Matters \n \nWe accept Constellation’s answer because it is a permissible answer to a request for \nclarification.50   \nB. \nSubstantive Matters \n \nRule 713(b) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure permits requests \nfor rehearing “of any final decision or other final order in a proceeding.”51  A final order \nimposes an obligation, denies a right, or fixes some legal relationship as a consummation of \nthe administrative process.52  The Show Cause Order did none of those things.  The \nCommission did not make any final decision or determination in the Show Cause Order on \n \n47 Constellation Answer at 1-2.   \n48 Id. at 2. \n49 Id. \n50 18 C.F.R. § 385.213(a)(3) (2025). \n51 18 C.F.R. § 385.713(b) (2025); see also 16 U.S.C. § 825l(a) (parties “aggrieved by \nan order issued by the Commission in a proceeding . . . may apply for a rehearing within        \n30 days after the issuance of such order”). \n52 Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Co. v. Consumer Prod. Safety Comm’n, 324 F.3d \n726, 731 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (“[f]inal agency action ‘mark[s] the consummation of the \nagency’s decisionmaking process’ and is ‘one by which rights or obligations have been \ndetermined, or from which legal consequences will flow”’) (quoting Bennett v. Spear,      \n520 U.S. 154, 178 (1997))."},{"page":11,"startToken":3457,"endToken":3812,"text":"Docket No. EL26-67-001 \n- 11 - \nwhether the PJM Tariff is unjust, unreasonable, or unduly discriminatory or preferential.  \nThe Commission determined only that the Tariff appears to be unjust, unreasonable, and \nunduly discriminatory or preferential and instituted an FPA section 206 show cause \nproceeding to reach a final determination on this issue.53  We therefore dismiss the requests \nfor rehearing, which concern a Commission action that is not final and that will be \nsucceeded by further Commission action.54   \n \nFor similar reasons, we also dismiss the requests for clarification.  The show cause \nproceeding has been held in abeyance until November 16, 2026, to allow PJM’s stakeholder \nprocess to continue so that PJM and the Transmission Owners may submit FPA section 205 \nfilings addressing the Commission’s preliminary findings in the Show Cause Order.55  We \ndo not intend to provide clarification or guidance with respect to the Show Cause Order \nwhile the show cause proceeding is held in abeyance.56  We encourage PJM, the \nTransmission Owners, and stakeholders to continue with the development of one or more \nFPA section 205 proposals.   \nThe Commission orders: \n \n(A) \nThe requests for rehearing are hereby dismissed, as discussed in the body of \nthis order. \n(B) \nThe requests for clarification are hereby dismissed, as discussed in the body of \nthis order. \nBy the Commission. \n \n( S E A L ) \n \nDebbie-Anne A. Reese, \nSecretary. \n \n53 See, e.g., Show Cause Order, 195 FERC ¶ 61,211 at PP 3, 34-35. \n54 See, e.g., Westlands Transmission, LLC, 177 FERC ¶ 61,175, at P 4 (2021);       \nRed Horse Wind 2, LLC, 172 FERC ¶ 61,147, at P 3 (2020); BridgeTex Pipeline Co., LLC,      \n164 FERC ¶ 61,111, at PP 10-12 (2018); Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 162 FERC ¶ 61,246, at \nPP 6-7 (2018); Talen Energy Mktg., LLC, 158 FERC ¶ 61,077, at PP 3-4 (2017). \n55 Abeyance Order, 196 FERC ¶ 61,129 at PP 8-10.   \n56 The Commission possesses “broad power to structure the proceedings before it.”  \nPapago Tribal Util. Auth. v. FERC, 628 F.2d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (quoting La. Power \n& Light Co. v. FPC, 536 F.2d 898, 910 (5th Cir. 1976))."}],"sections":[{"p":1,"at":0,"title":"Opening text","method":"opening text","endPage":3,"endAt":552,"startToken":0,"endToken":568},{"p":3,"at":552,"title":"I. Show Cause Order","method":"PDF bookmark","endPage":5,"endAt":31,"startToken":568,"endToken":1301},{"p":5,"at":31,"title":"II. Clarification and Rehearing Requests and Answer","method":"PDF bookmark","endPage":5,"endAt":85,"startToken":1301,"endToken":1308},{"p":5,"at":85,"title":"A. Eolian Request for Clarification or, in the Alternative, Rehearing","method":"PDF bookmark","endPage":6,"endAt":31,"startToken":1308,"endToken":1645},{"p":6,"at":31,"title":"B. Indicated PJM Transmission Owners Request for Clarification, or in the Alternative, Rehearing","method":"PDF bookmark","endPage":6,"endAt":2001,"startToken":1645,"endToken":1929},{"p":6,"at":2001,"title":"C. Joint Consumer Advocates Request for Clarification and Rehearing","method":"PDF bookmark","endPage":8,"endAt":31,"startToken":1929,"endToken":2439},{"p":8,"at":31,"title":"D. PA OCA Request for Clarification or, in the Alternative, Rehearing","method":"PDF bookmark","endPage":8,"endAt":1353,"startToken":2439,"endToken":2633},{"p":8,"at":1353,"title":"E. Exelon/FirstEnergy Request for Rehearing","method":"PDF bookmark","endPage":9,"endAt":1477,"startToken":2633,"endToken":3018},{"p":9,"at":1477,"title":"F. Constellation Answer","method":"PDF bookmark","endPage":10,"endAt":878,"startToken":3018,"endToken":3235},{"p":10,"at":878,"title":"III. Discussion","method":"PDF bookmark","endPage":10,"endAt":884,"startToken":3235,"endToken":3236},{"p":10,"at":884,"title":"Discussion","method":"printed heading","endPage":10,"endAt":896,"startToken":3236,"endToken":3237},{"p":10,"at":896,"title":"A. Procedural Matters","method":"PDF bookmark","endPage":10,"endAt":1028,"startToken":3237,"endToken":3256},{"p":10,"at":1028,"title":"B. Substantive Matters","method":"PDF bookmark","endPage":11,"endAt":2143,"startToken":3256,"endToken":3812}]}