FERC rejected a complaint from the PJM Independent Market Monitor asking it to determine the RTO holds the authority to deny transmission service for large loads that cannot be reliably served (EL26-30).

The March 23 order found the Monitor had not demonstrated PJM would be in violation of statutory or regulatory requirements without that authority, nor would its governing documents be unjust and unreasonable. While NERC standards mandate PJM determine the amount of capacity needed to maintain reliability and identify shortfalls, the RTO to not required to solve deficiencies.

But FERC also noted that “our rejection of a procedurally inadequate complaint is unrelated to the gravity of the issues the deficient complaint raises. Though we find that the IMM failed to meet its burden under Federal Power Act Section 206, we acknowledge that the IMM and commenters raise very important issues regarding the challenges posed by large load additions to PJM’s transmission system, including ensuring reliable transmission service and resource adequacy.”

The Monitor had argued that PJM is considering changes to its capacity market that would allow data centers to come online regardless of whether there is sufficient capacity and transmission capability to cover their load. It said PJM has an obligation to ensure all customers receive reliable service and argued that allowing these large loads to come online would undermine the quality for all other consumers. (See Market Monitor Files Complaint Over PJM Large Load Interconnections.)

To submit a commentary on this topic, email forum@rtoinsider.com.

The Nov. 25, 2025, complaint stems from proposals brought by PJM staff and stakeholders during the Critical Issue Fast Path (CIFP) conducted last year to identify how to serve ballooning load. The Monitor sponsored the implementation of an interconnection queue for large loads, which would prevent them from coming online until the requisite capacity and transmission is in place. The PJM Board of Managers opted to go with a package of market changes that would create an expedited interconnection track for new resources; require large loads to either bring their own capacity or be subject to curtailment on PJM request; and overhaul the load forecasting process.

PJM responded that the complaint was effectively a petition for a declaratory order seeking to curb the options available to it in the CIFP process and the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking focused on large load interconnection (EL25-49). (See PJM Presents 1st Look at Co-located Load Compliance Filings.)

Several generation owners, data center representatives and utilities protested the filing on the grounds that the Monitor had not shown PJM is failing to meet reliability standards. Constellation Energy, Talen Energy, FirstEnergy and the Electric Power Supply Association submitted protests, and the Data Center Coalition and PJM Power Providers Group jointly requested the commission dismiss the complaint.

The Natural Resources Defense Council and Sierra Club also objected to the Monitor’s complaint, arguing the requested relief was too vague and would impinge on state jurisdiction and PJM’s ability to prevent data center costs from being shifted to other consumers. While they agreed large load growth threatens reliability and affordability, the issue should be addressed in separate docket, such as the ANOPR, a consumer advocate complaint arguing the capacity market lacks adequate market power mitigation and a complaint from the Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel regarding the growing cost of local transmission projects (EL25-18, EL23-105). (See Consumer Advocates File Wide-ranging Complaint on PJM Capacity Market.)

The commission’s order stated it is “considering and adjudicating” issues raised in the filing in other proceedings and anticipates additional filings from PJM relating to co-locating generation and large loads, a new reliability backstop mechanism and a Connect and Manage framework under which large loads would be required to curtail under strained system conditions.

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro submitted comments agreeing with the Monitor that PJM lacks processes to modulate load growth at a time when large loads are driving high market prices and declining reliability. But he argued that “rationing” interconnection service is not the path forward and that PJM should pursue rule changes to allow new capacity to come online faster and incentivize large loads to be curtailable.

Consumer advocates in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Illinois, Delaware and Ohio jointly supported the Monitor, arguing that without the authority to reject large load interconnections, PJM’s right to review utilities’ interconnection requests is little more than a rubber stamp. A proactive process for approving new service requests would pace load growth with reliability.

“Aside from fulfilling its fundamental role and obligation of ensuring grid reliability and administering efficient energy and capacity markets, PJM serves no purpose in pursuing the policy aim of continued proliferation of data centers and AI within the region if it conflicts with PJM’s ability to meet its priority obligations,” they wrote. “PJM can and must say ‘no’ to the undisciplined interconnection of data center and AI large loads to the PJM transmission system to protect grid reliability unless and until there exists sufficient resource adequacy.”

The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities argued it would be insufficient to leave oversight of large load interconnections to the states, as the cost and reliability impacts of large loads can extend across the PJM region.