EL26-67-001 · 2026-09-21 · FERC

Order dismissing requests for rehearing and clarification of the June 18, 2026 PJM show-cause order

196 FERC ¶ 61,214 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 
 
Before Commissioners:  Laura V. Swett, Chairman; 
                                        David Rosner, Lindsay S. See, 
                                        Judy W. Chang, and David LaCerte. 
 
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. 
AEP Appalachian Transmission Company, Inc. 
AEP Indiana Michigan Transmission Company, Inc. 
AEP Kentucky Transmission Company, Inc. 
AEP Ohio Transmission Company, Inc. 
AEP West Virginia Transmission Company, Inc. 
American Transmission Systems, Incorporated 
Appalachian Power Company 
Atlantic City Electric Company 
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company 
Commonwealth Edison Company 
Commonwealth Edison Company of Indiana, Inc. 
Dayton Power and Light Company 
Delmarva Power & Light Company 
Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc. 
Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. 
Duquesne Light Company 
Essential Power Rock Springs, LLC 
Hudson Transmission Partners, LLC 
Indiana Michigan Power Company 
Jersey Central Power & Light Company 
Kentucky Power Company 
Keystone Appalachian Transmission Company 
Kingsport Power Company 
Linden VFT, LLC 
Mid-Atlantic Interstate Transmission, LLC 
Monongahela Power Company 
Neptune Regional Transmission System, LLC 
NextEra Energy Transmission MidAtlantic Indiana, Inc. 
Ohio Power Company 
Ohio Valley Electric Corporation 
Old Dominion Electric Cooperative 
PECO Energy Company 
PPL Electric Utilities Corporation 
Docket No. EL26-67-001

Docket No. EL26-67-001 
- 2 - 
The Potomac Edison Company 
Potomac Electric Power Company 
Public Service Electric and Gas Company 
Rockland Electric Company 
Silver Run Electric, LLC 
Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Company 
Transource West Virginia, LLC 
UGI Utilities, Inc. 
Virginia Electric and Power Company 
Wheeling Power Company 
 
 
ORDER DISMISSING REQUESTS FOR REHEARING AND CLARIFICATION 
 
(Issued September 21, 2026) 
 
 
On June 18, 2026, the Commission issued an order under section 206 of the Federal 
Power Act (FPA)1 initiating a show cause proceeding directing PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. 
(PJM) and the Transmission Owners2 to explain why PJM’s Open Access Transmission 
Tariff (Tariff) remains just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential 
without certain Tariff provisions addressing large loads and co-located loads, or propose 
Tariff revisions addressing the Commission’s concerns.3  On July 17, 2026, the 
Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate (PA OCA) filed a request for clarification or, in 
the alternative, rehearing, and Joint Consumer Advocates4 filed a request for clarification 
and rehearing.  On July 20, 2026, Eolian, L.P. (Eolian) and Indicated PJM Transmission 
Owners5 each filed a request for clarification or, in the alternative, rehearing, and Exelon 
 
1 16 U.S.C. § 824e. 
2 Transmission Owners refers to the entities listed in the caption to this order.  
3 PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 195 FERC ¶ 61,211, at PP 3, 35, errata notice,       
196 FERC ¶ 61,122 (2026) (Show Cause Order).  Capitalized terms not otherwise defined 
herein have the meanings ascribed to them in the Tariff. 
4 Joint Consumer Advocates consist of:  The Maryland Office of People’s Counsel, 
the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel, the Delaware Division of the Public Advocate, and the 
Office of the Illinois Attorney General. 
5 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.,

Docket No. EL26-67-001 
- 3 - 
Corporation and FirstEnergy Services Company (collectively, Exelon/FirstEnergy) 
separately filed a request for rehearing.  On August 4, 2026, Constellation Energy 
Generation, LLC (Constellation) filed an answer to the Indicated PJM Transmission 
Owners’ request for clarification. 
 
Pursuant to Allegheny Defense Project v. FERC,6 the rehearing requests filed in this 
proceeding may be deemed denied by operation of law.  However, we are dismissing the 
requests for rehearing and clarification, as discussed below. 
I. 
Show Cause Order 
 
In the Show Cause Order, the Commission found that PJM’s existing Tariff appears to 
be unjust, unreasonable, or unduly discriminatory or preferential because it lacks certain 
provisions related to large loads and co-located loads and instituted a show cause proceeding 
pursuant to FPA section 206.7  The Commission directed PJM and the Transmission Owners, 
within 60 days of the date of the Show Cause Order, i.e., by August 17, 2026, to either 
explain why PJM’s Tariff remains just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or 
preferential without certain Tariff provisions addressing large loads and co-located loads, or 
propose Tariff revisions addressing the Commission’s concerns.8 
 
Specifically, the Commission made preliminary findings that PJM’s existing Tariff 
appears to be unjust, unreasonable, and unduly discriminatory or preferential because it 
 
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; Dominion Energy 
Services, Inc. on behalf of Virginia Electric and Power Company; 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; PPL Electric Utilities Corporation; and Rockland Electric Company.   
6 964 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (en banc).   
7 Show Cause Order, 195 FERC ¶ 61,211 at PP 3, 35. 
8 Id. P 3.

Docket No. EL26-67-001 
- 4 - 
lacks provisions addressing:  (1) the application process, study procedures, and ongoing 
operational requirements that apply to Eligible Customers seeking transmission service on 
behalf of large loads;9 (2) additional transparency concerning the Network Upgrade costs to 
provide transmission service to Eligible Customers on behalf of large loads, a pro forma 
cost recovery agreement to mitigate the risk of cost shifting among transmission customers, 
and a mechanism to ensure such payments are appropriately credited toward transmission 
owners’ transmission revenue requirements consistent with the Commission’s cost-of-
service regulations;10 (3) 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; and (4) the rates, terms, and 
conditions of service applicable to interconnection customers serving electrically proximate 
large load or co-located load.11 
 
On August 14, 2026, the Commission granted motions for abeyance filed by PJM 
and certain transmission owners, such that responses to the Show Cause Order will be due 
on November 16, 2026, and answers to responses will be due on December 16, 2026.12  The 
Commission also stated that if PJM or the Transmission Owners submit an FPA section 205 
filing addressing the Commission’s preliminary findings in the Show Cause Order on or 
before November 16, 2026, then the obligation of the respondent(s) who have made such an 
FPA section 205 filing to file a response to the Show Cause Order will be suspended, and 
the show cause proceeding will continue to be held in abeyance pending further 
Commission directive in the show cause proceeding.13 
 
9 While the Commission stated that “it appears that it would be reasonable to define a 
large load as a new, commercial or industrial customer, located at a single site behind one or 
more points of interconnection, and that has a peak load of 50 MW or greater, interconnects 
to the transmission system at a voltage level of greater than 69 kV, and is not part of a      
co-location arrangement,” the Commission also stated that PJM could propose Tariff 
revisions establishing its own definition of large load.  Id. P 58. 
10 The Commission preliminarily found that the PJM Tariff lacks adequate 
mechanisms to mitigate the risks of cost shifting among transmission customers, which may 
result in unjust and unreasonable rates for transmission service.  Id. PP 66, 77.  
11 Id. PP 3, 35.   
12 PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 196 FERC ¶ 61,129, at PP 8-9 (2026) (Abeyance 
Order). 
13 Id. P 10.

Docket No. EL26-67-001 
- 5 - 
II. 
Clarification and Rehearing Requests and Answer 
A. 
Eolian Request for Clarification or, in the Alternative, Rehearing 
 
Eolian requests clarification or, in the alternative, rehearing to provide that 
electrically proximate generation may access permanent load-limited generator 
interconnection service where it is equally capable of enabling the large load to limit its 
withdrawals from the transmission system on a long-term basis without creating system 
reliability risks.14  Eolian contends that the Show Cause Order limits PJM’s ability to put in 
place a replacement rate that will ensure just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory 
rates by not requiring or by limiting its ability to adopt a permanent load-limited generator 
interconnection service for front-of-the-meter resources that are capable of enabling large 
loads to limit their withdrawals from the transmission system under certain conditions on a 
long-term basis without resulting reliability concerns.15  Eolian argues that this limitation 
would create a significant barrier to large loads’ ability to use the new transmission services 
directed under the Show Cause Order, and therefore would significantly impair the ability 
of the Show Cause Order to ensure just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory 
rates.16   
 
Eolian also requests rehearing or clarification to clarify that any flexibility to tailor 
the generator interconnection reforms to the unique circumstances of the region must be 
paired with an obligation for PJM to show that the reforms will enable a pathway for 
significant generating capacity to provide load-limited interconnection.17  Eolian argues that 
the Show Cause Order includes some language that could be interpreted such that it gives 
flexibility to PJM to adopt minimal reforms that do not achieve the objectives of ensuring 
just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory rates.18  
 
14 Eolian Request at 3, 4-14.  Eolian states that load-limited generator interconnection 
service “is premised on the generator’s commitment to limiting its output to match the 
consumption of the load it is supporting.”  Id., attach. A (Aff. of Andrew Levitt) at 3. 
15 Id. at 3-4. 
16 Id. at 4-5. 
17 Id. at 16. 
18 Id. at 3-4, 14-16.

Docket No. EL26-67-001 
- 6 - 
B. 
Indicated PJM Transmission Owners Request for Clarification, or in the 
Alternative, Rehearing 
 
Indicated PJM Transmission Owners request that the Commission clarify that the 
definition of “large load” proposed in the Show Cause Order, including the 50 MW 
threshold, does not prevent PJM and the Transmission Owners from proposing and 
supporting additional service-specific criteria for large load customers relating to the types 
of services contemplated in the Show Cause Order.19  Indicated PJM Transmission    
Owners contend that it may not be appropriate to offer identical services to all large load 
customers.20  Indicated PJM Transmission Owners contend that if the Commission declines 
to make this clarification, the Commission should grant rehearing.  Indicated PJM 
Transmission Owners argue that requiring a one-size-fits-all approach for all large load 
customers that meet the definition of “large load” proposed in the Show Cause Order is 
likely to be over-inclusive and unduly discriminatory.21   
 
Indicated PJM Transmission Owners also request that the Commission clarify that 
PJM and the Transmission Owners will be permitted to propose and support definitions of 
“large load” and “electrically proximate large load” that are not based on the location of 
facilities relative to the point of interconnection and that they have the flexibility to propose 
other points of reference such as the point of change of ownership.22  If the Commission 
declines to grant this clarification, Indicated PJM Transmission Owners seek rehearing.  
Indicated PJM Transmission Owners contend that, as PJM and the Transmission Owners 
have explained in the PJM co-located load proceeding, there are significant problems with 
adopting such definitions based on facilities on the customer-side of the point of 
interconnection, including potentially encouraging gaming that will undermine the efficient 
and reliable interconnection of large loads.   
C. 
Joint Consumer Advocates Request for Clarification and Rehearing 
 
Joint Consumer Advocates request that the Commission clarify the standard that the 
Commission will apply to assess cost recovery agreements.23  Joint Consumer Advocates 
argue that to be just and reasonable, a cost recovery agreement must require the Eligible 
 
19 Indicated PJM Transmission Owners Request at 3, 5. 
20 Id. at 5. 
21 Id. at 3-4, 6.  
22 Id. at 3, 6-8. 
23 Joint Consumer Advocates Request at 4, 8, 26-27.

Docket No. EL26-67-001 
- 7 - 
Customer seeking transmission service on behalf of large load to pay the full incremental 
cost of the Network Upgrades needed to accommodate the large load. 
 
Joint Consumer Advocates also request that the Commission clarify that transmission 
owners must immediately credit revenue received under cost recovery agreements to the other 
transmission customers in the relevant zone.24  Joint Consumer Advocates state that credits 
against a transmission owner’s revenue requirement in a later year flow to whichever 
transmission customers are in the zone at that time and not to the customers who bore the cost 
shift when the costs of the relevant Network Upgrade entered the revenue requirement.25 
 
Noting that much of the Show Cause Order is preliminary, Joint Consumer Advocates 
state that they are concerned that it may be construed to contain final determinations about 
jurisdiction and a definitive statement about the scope of the Commission’s duty to address 
the risk of cost shifting among transmission customers.  Joint Consumer Advocates state that 
they seek rehearing of only those determinations that could be read as final.26  Specifically, 
Joint Consumer Advocates argue that the Commission erred by recognizing a duty to address 
the risk of cost shifting among transmission customers while failing to remedy the actual cost 
shifts that the PJM Tariff guarantees in its cost allocation method for Network Upgrades for 
large loads.27  Joint Consumer Advocates also argue that the Commission erred by finding 
that transparency will enable state regulators to “sub-allocate” Network Upgrade costs to 
retail customers “as they see fit” without considering that the PJM Tariff fixes the charges 
each transmission customer must pay.28  Joint Consumer Advocates further argue that the 
Commission erred in concluding that its approach “respect[s] the cooperative federalism 
approach established under the FPA” because it could assign to states a redistribution of 
Commission-set charges and could invite states to approve transmission rates that conflict  
with the PJM Tariff.29 
 
24 Id. at 4, 8-9, 27-28. 
25 Id. at 8-9. 
26 Id. at 4-5, 15-16. 
27 Id. at 2, 6, 14-18, 20.  Joint Consumer Advocates state that their request for 
rehearing targets cost shifts due to Network Upgrades designated as Supplemental Projects 
or that are included in the Regional Transmission Expansion Plan and whose costs are 
allocated pursuant to Schedule 12 of the PJM Tariff.  Id. 15 n.30. 
28 Id. at 6-7 (citing Show Cause Order, 195 FERC ¶ 61,211 at P 70); see also id. at 
19-26. 
29 Id. at 7 (citing Show Cause Order, 195 FERC ¶ 61,211 at P 70).

Docket No. EL26-67-001 
- 8 - 
D. 
PA OCA Request for Clarification or, in the Alternative, Rehearing 
 
PA OCA requests that the Commission clarify that:  (1) the pro forma cost recovery 
agreements are partial and nonexclusive solutions to the wholesale transmission cost 
allocation problem;30 (2) existing regional cost allocation methods may result in unjust and 
unreasonable wholesale transmission cost shifting between Eligible Customers serving large 
loads and other transmission customers because, under existing methods, other transmission 
customers pay the costs of Network Upgrades that they do not cause or benefit from;31 and 
(3) parties to this proceeding may develop an actionable record on the regional wholesale 
cost allocation methods for the costs of Network Upgrades caused by large loads.32 
 
To the extent the Commission denies clarification, PA OCA requests rehearing.33  
PA OCA argues that, to the extent the Commission’s determinations are final, the Show 
Cause Order violates the FPA and Administrative Procedure Act34 because the Commission 
failed to:  (1) sufficiently address the “wholesale transmission cost-shifting problem caused 
by large loads” identified in the Show Cause Order;35 and (2) permit record development to 
remedy the unjust and unreasonable cost-shifting identified in the Show Cause Order.36 
E. 
Exelon/FirstEnergy Request for Rehearing 
 
Exelon/FirstEnergy argue that the Commission failed to meet its FPA section 206 
burden to show that PJM’s existing rate is unjust and unreasonable because:  (1) there is no 
evidence in the record that flexible large loads or any other large loads are unable to obtain 
reliable, timely, and reasonably priced service using the existing Network Service 
construct;37 (2) the Commission did not explain its departure from Commission precedent 
 
30 PA OCA Request at 1-2, 4-5, 10-14. 
31 Id. at 4, 10. 
32 Id. at 2, 5-6, 14-20.  PA OCA contends that the record should encompass all 
aspects of wholesale transmission cost shifting caused by large loads in PJM, including but 
not limited to the use of expansion rates and crediting mechanisms.  Id. at 2. 
33 Id. at 2-3, 6-10. 
34 5 U.S.C. §§ 551-559. 
35 PA OCA Request at 2-3, 6-8, 20-22. 
36 Id. at 3, 8-10, 22-26. 
37 Exelon/FirstEnergy Request at 3-4, 10-13.

Docket No. EL26-67-001 
- 9 - 
regarding the reasonableness of existing Network Service;38 and (3) embedded transmission 
system costs should be charged because flexible large loads and other large loads rely upon 
the entire embedded transmission system to serve their full gross load.39 
 
Exelon/FirstEnergy also argue that the Commission failed to meet its FPA section 
206 burden to show that its proposed replacement rate is just and reasonable.40  Specifically, 
Exelon/FirstEnergy argue that:  (1) allowing special treatment for flexible large loads 
violates the FPA’s requirement that there be no undue preference or unreasonable  
difference in rates between classes of service;41 (2) the Commission’s emphasis on control 
technologies and protection systems is in tension with the Commission’s open access 
policies and the Commission erred in failing to account for the fact that protective systems 
can and have failed;42 (3) the Commission abandons a main principle of service to load, 
which is that customers share in the embedded costs of the transmission system;43 (4) 
contract demand service will not promote efficiency or change siting;44 and (5) the 
Commission’s disregard of reliability considerations underscores that its proposed 
replacement rate is not just and reasonable.45  Finally, Exelon/FirstEnergy assert that the 
Commission exceeded its jurisdiction by violating the major questions doctrine and 
infringing on state retail authority.46  
F. 
Constellation Answer 
 
Constellation argues that the Commission should deny Indicated PJM Transmission 
Owners’ request for clarification regarding the definition of “electrically proximate large 
load” with respect to co-located loads consistent with the Commission’s prior findings that 
the point of interconnection—not the point of change in ownership—is the appropriate 
 
38 Id. at 4-6, 13-19. 
39 Id. at 6, 19-21. 
40 Id. at 6-8; 21-27. 
41 Id. at 6-7, 21-24. 
42 Id. at 7, 24-25. 
43 Id. at 7-8. 
44 Id. at 8, 25-26. 
45 Id. at 8, 26-27. 
46 Id. at 9, 27-31.

Docket No. EL26-67-001 
- 10 - 
point.47  Constellation contends that Indicated PJM Transmission Owners’ request for 
clarification is a “thinly-veiled collateral attack” on the Commission’s previous rulings in 
Docket Nos. ER26-1088-000 and ER26-1479-000.48  Constellation further argues that the 
Commission should clarify that:  (1) any eligibility requirements PJM and the Transmission 
Owners propose in their initial filings must not be so prescriptive as to improperly 
disqualify large loads, foreclosing any benefits that help avoid unnecessary transmission 
upgrades and reduce strain on the grid; and (2) Transmission Owners may not use the point 
of change in ownership, or any other point of reference, to define “electrically proximate 
large load” in a manner that likewise undermines speedy interconnection or avoidance of 
unnecessary transmission upgrades.49 
III. 
Discussion 
A. 
Procedural Matters 
 
We accept Constellation’s answer because it is a permissible answer to a request for 
clarification.50   
B. 
Substantive Matters 
 
Rule 713(b) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure permits requests 
for rehearing “of any final decision or other final order in a proceeding.”51  A final order 
imposes an obligation, denies a right, or fixes some legal relationship as a consummation of 
the administrative process.52  The Show Cause Order did none of those things.  The 
Commission did not make any final decision or determination in the Show Cause Order on 
 
47 Constellation Answer at 1-2.   
48 Id. at 2. 
49 Id. 
50 18 C.F.R. § 385.213(a)(3) (2025). 
51 18 C.F.R. § 385.713(b) (2025); see also 16 U.S.C. § 825l(a) (parties “aggrieved by 
an order issued by the Commission in a proceeding . . . may apply for a rehearing within        
30 days after the issuance of such order”). 
52 Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Co. v. Consumer Prod. Safety Comm’n, 324 F.3d 
726, 731 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (“[f]inal agency action ‘mark[s] the consummation of the 
agency’s decisionmaking process’ and is ‘one by which rights or obligations have been 
determined, or from which legal consequences will flow”’) (quoting Bennett v. Spear,      
520 U.S. 154, 178 (1997)).

Docket No. EL26-67-001 
- 11 - 
whether the PJM Tariff is unjust, unreasonable, or unduly discriminatory or preferential.  
The Commission determined only that the Tariff appears to be unjust, unreasonable, and 
unduly discriminatory or preferential and instituted an FPA section 206 show cause 
proceeding to reach a final determination on this issue.53  We therefore dismiss the requests 
for rehearing, which concern a Commission action that is not final and that will be 
succeeded by further Commission action.54   
 
For similar reasons, we also dismiss the requests for clarification.  The show cause 
proceeding has been held in abeyance until November 16, 2026, to allow PJM’s stakeholder 
process to continue so that PJM and the Transmission Owners may submit FPA section 205 
filings addressing the Commission’s preliminary findings in the Show Cause Order.55  We 
do not intend to provide clarification or guidance with respect to the Show Cause Order 
while the show cause proceeding is held in abeyance.56  We encourage PJM, the 
Transmission Owners, and stakeholders to continue with the development of one or more 
FPA section 205 proposals.   
The Commission orders: 
 
(A) 
The requests for rehearing are hereby dismissed, as discussed in the body of 
this order. 
(B) 
The requests for clarification are hereby dismissed, as discussed in the body of 
this order. 
By the Commission. 
 
( S E A L ) 
 
Debbie-Anne A. Reese, 
Secretary. 
 
53 See, e.g., Show Cause Order, 195 FERC ¶ 61,211 at PP 3, 34-35. 
54 See, e.g., Westlands Transmission, LLC, 177 FERC ¶ 61,175, at P 4 (2021);       
Red Horse Wind 2, LLC, 172 FERC ¶ 61,147, at P 3 (2020); BridgeTex Pipeline Co., LLC,      
164 FERC ¶ 61,111, at PP 10-12 (2018); Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 162 FERC ¶ 61,246, at 
PP 6-7 (2018); Talen Energy Mktg., LLC, 158 FERC ¶ 61,077, at PP 3-4 (2017). 
55 Abeyance Order, 196 FERC ¶ 61,129 at PP 8-10.   
56 The Commission possesses “broad power to structure the proceedings before it.”  
Papago Tribal Util. Auth. v. FERC, 628 F.2d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (quoting La. Power 
& Light Co. v. FPC, 536 F.2d 898, 910 (5th Cir. 1976)).