U.S. Department of Energy notice of intervention and statement of position supporting the September 29, 2026 backstop order
Read topic-matched comments in ER26-3380
Topics in the text: Cost allocation · Filing procedure · Reliability and curtailment
What the document says
PDF p. 8
DOE backs the order and wants PJM to refile by October 29 to protect ratepayers.
DOE urges PJM to accept the accelerated option proposed by the Commission and to swiftly submit a revised tariff pursuant to FPA section 205 on or before October 29, 2026. PDF p. 8
PDF p. 2
DOE backs the order and wants PJM to refile by October 29 to protect ratepayers.
PJM should implement the cost allocation and other reforms identified by the Commission to ensure that the costs of serving new data centers or other large electric energy loads are not unfairly shifted to PJM’s existing ratepayers. PDF p. 2Filed comments: Cost allocation
PDF p. 6
DOE says PJM's two-year lookback lets large loads ride free on the shortfall.
PJM’s cost allocation methodology (looking back only two years) does not appear to sufficiently allocate the costs of new capacity to serve all large loads that have caused the current resource adequacy shortfall PDF p. 6Filed comments: Cost allocation
PDF p. 7
DOE says PJM's two-year lookback lets large loads ride free on the shortfall.
PJM should ensure that any cost allocation methodology properly allocates costs and does not result in free ridership. PDF p. 7Filed comments: Cost allocation
PDF p. 7
DOE wants mandatory project-level large load identification and a clear build, bring or buy path.
DOE agrees with the Commission’s call for improved large load identification and transparency to support a just and reasonable cost allocation. PDF p. 7Filed comments: Cost allocation
PDF p. 7
DOE wants mandatory project-level large load identification and a clear build, bring or buy path.
The Commission accepted PJM’s framework for crediting qualifying new capacity brought forward to serve new large load against the RBP target. DOE supports this framework. PDF p. 7
PDF p. 8
DOE wants mandatory project-level large load identification and a clear build, bring or buy path.
PJM’s current RBP process does not establish a clear path for such optionality and should be revised to do so. PDF p. 8
Responses and related views
No section-specific public response is linked for this document.
Source sections
Printed headings where available; page ranges otherwise. Excerpts below are selected from the text by keyword.
Opening text
opening text · Topic match: Cost allocation
Reg. 11439 (Mar. 9, 2026), https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/03/09/2026-04645/ratepayer-protection-pledge [hereinafter Ratepayer Protection Pledge]. 3 42 U.S.C. § 7175; 18 C.F.R. § 385.214(a)(1). 2 submitting a revised tariff under Federal Power Act (FPA) section 205 on or before…Read this passage Filed comments: Cost allocation
I. Statement of Principles Regarding PJM and President Trump’s Ratepayer
printed heading · Topic match: Cost allocation
P 161. 4 further recommendations, the Commission emphasized that PJM’s RBP cost allocation methodology must be consistent with the Commission’s cost-causation principles.13Read this passage Filed comments: Cost allocation
II. Current State of Energy Demand in PJM Requires Immediate Action
printed heading · Topic match: Cost allocation
Current State of Energy Demand in PJM Requires Immediate Action From 2020 to 2025, demand for electric energy in the United States has increased more than 9% (i.e., 387 terawatt-hours (TWh)), from 3,918 to 4,305 TWh.14 While this load growth occurred across residential, commercial, and industrial…Read this passage Filed comments: Cost allocation
III. Department of Energy Position
printed heading · Topic match: Filing procedure
Operator, Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,216 granting abeyance, 196 FERC ¶ 61,130 (2026). 22 See Ratepayer Protection Pledge, supra note 2. 6 RBP proposal in accordance with the Commission’s guidance and submit those revisions pursuant to FPA section 205.23 DOE encourages all Ratepayer Protection Pledge…Read this passage Filed comments: Filing procedure
A. Cost Allocation That Avoids Free Ridership
printed heading · Topic match: Cost allocation
This principle requires that “all Commission- jurisdictional rates and charges must ‘reflect to some degree the costs actually caused by the customer who pays for them’ and costs must be allocated in a manner that is at least roughly commensurate with benefits.”24 Compliance with this principle is…Read this passage Filed comments: Cost allocation
B. Mandatory Large Load Identification and Transparency
printed heading · Topic match: Cost allocation
Mandatory Large Load Identification and Transparency DOE agrees with the Commission’s call for improved large load identification and transparency to support a just and reasonable cost allocation.Read this passage Filed comments: Cost allocation
C. Enable the Ratepayer Protection Pledge’s “Build, Bring, or Buy” Principle
printed heading · Topic match: Cost allocation
Enable the Ratepayer Protection Pledge’s “Build, Bring, or Buy” Principle The Commission accepted PJM’s framework for crediting qualifying new capacity brought forward to serve new large load against the RBP target.Read this passage Filed comments: Cost allocation
IV. Responsive Action
printed heading · Topic match: Cost allocation
DOE likewise encourages the numerous signatories to President Trump’s Ratepayer Protection Pledge participating in these dockets directly, or indirectly through the filings of trade associations, to support further reforms consistent with the Ratepayer Protection Pledge and DOE’s recommendations…Read this passage Filed comments: Cost allocation
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
printed heading
Dated at Washington, D.C., this 7th day of October, 2026.Read this passage