Search
December 6, 2025

NCUC Examines the Challenges to Meeting Demand from Large Loads

The North Carolina Utilities Commission held hearings over several days examining how utilities plan to reliably serve large loads including data centers and adapt to the changes they’re bringing to the industry.

“We are experiencing a lot of growth in the Carolinas, and that is not restricted just to large loads; it’s across residential, commercial, industrial and manufacturing sectors,” Jonathan Byrd, managing director of rate design for Duke Energy, told the commission Oct. 15. “And that said, we certainly acknowledge that these large loads present unique challenges and opportunities. The growth we’re seeing reflects the state’s favorable business environment, which includes constructive energy policies and affordable and reliable electricity.”

Duke updates its rules as the new load paradigm has become apparent, and fine-tuning is going to continue as it gains experience serving new customers, he added.

The utility, which serves most of the state, has received inquiries from 420 projects totaling 46 GW in total possible demand. Of those projects, 128 are data centers representing 37 GW of demand, said Andrew Tate, Duke’s managing director of economic development.

“We acknowledge that only a fraction of these will ever progress to actually receive service,” Tate said. “We receive new project inquiries every week, and every week we have projects that advance to either terminate or loss, or successful outcome.”

Large load projects can be a challenge for utility planners, but they bring major economic benefits, including jobs and tax revenues for communities that sometimes have been overlooked in past economic expansions, he added.

“The large load customers that we work with daily value certainty in generation resources, as opposed to the uncertainty that can exist in some markets when it’s uncertain who’s building the generation,” Tate said. “Our customers expect us to provide the load to serve their needs.”

While on-site backup generation is common, Duke has seen relatively few large load customers interested in co-location, and that usually relates to speed-to-market concerns when they want to locate in an area with transmission constraints, he added.

Duke has arrangements with the new large load customers that are designed to hold existing customers harmless while helping the sites get online in the name of economic development, said Alex Castle, the utility’s deputy general counsel.

“Protecting existing customers remains our central priority, but we’re always conscious of the balance that’s required to ensure that the risks and accountability that we’re asking new large load customers to carry are reasonable,” Castle said. “We intend to check and adjust over time in order to refine our approach to right-size these financial and operational requirements.”

Duke starts by studying the project’s impact on its grid and resource adequacy, which are laid out in a “letter agreement” that the prospective load has 30 days to sign once issued. That signals an intent to proceed and comes with preliminary financial commitments. That is followed by an electric service agreement (ESA) that must be signed within 120 days and lays out the long-term conditions for service, Castle said.

Dominion’s Experience with Data Center Alley

The NCUC also heard testimony from Dominion Energy, which has long-term experience with data centers, as its Virginia utility serves the largest market for them in the world.

Data centers make up 25% of the utility’s total demand, which is expected to rise to 50% in 2035, said Vice President of Regulatory Affairs Scott Gaskill.

Dominion has set up an internal “Data Center Practice” to help manage its service of the key customer group, said its director, Stan Blackwell.

“If you add up the next five large U.S. markets — add them together — they’re not as big as our Virginia market,” Blackwell said. “In fact, it’s [just] Loudoun County. It’s about 30 square miles. It’s the largest market in the world.”

Just seven customers make up 72% of that market, and Dominion is able to base its forecast around their future growth individually, while putting the other 28% in an eighth category for forecasting. The main market in Loudoun runs an average of about a 90% capacity factor, and curtail-ability of that load is limited. It serves as a constant baseline of demand while small customers drive the peaks, Blackwell said.

A chart Dominion showed laying out the growth in demand forecasts in recent years and recent peak demand days | Dominion Energy

Dominion is seeing data centers expand beyond Loudoun, which is the wealthiest county per capita in the nation with expensive land. The new wave of data centers built to train artificial intelligence is leading to more sites being located in cheaper areas of Virginia.

“In AI, there’s kind of two modes of it, if you will,” Blackwell said. “One is, you train a model. So, your data center cycles up and down to train a model. Once it’s trained, you take it out of that [and] put it in what’s called an inference data center, and that’s the one that runs like a chainsaw. So, once you have a model train, it runs all the time. You don’t tend to want to curtail that, because that’s what customers access.”

The utility has so much experience with data centers that it is able to build statistical models based on past experience to forecast future demand from the sector.

“We do it statistically by our largest customers and look at their past behavior and then make an assessment whether that will continue in the future,” Blackwell said. “And we haven’t seen a change in the behavior over the whole time period: 2013 to today.”

Dominion has a pending proposal at the Virginia State Corporation Commission to set up a new large load tariff that will separate out the customer class, offering data centers and others transparency while ensuring fair cost allocation, Blackwell said. (See Citing Inflation and Load Growth, Dominion Asks Virginia for Higher Rates.)

Are Large Load Tariffs Necessary?

Neither Dominion nor Duke were in favor of setting up similar large load tariffs for North Carolina, but NCUC public staff urged commissioners to get ahead of the issue and start working on constructs for both companies now.

The suggestion comes after staff reviewed 44 tariffs from 28 states, said Dustin Metz, NCUC engineer for public staff.

“Large load has driven electric system growth, but with fewer larger customers than in the past, high-load-factor customers have unique operating characteristics and occupy a different role than traditional large general service or traditional industrial customers,” Metz said. “With careful rate design, reasonable ratepayer protections will allow parties to prosper, support economic development and ensure risks are mitigated.”

Even if large customers do everything right, they still face economic risks that could lead to their early retirement, which risks stranded costs falling to others, said Patrick Fahey, public utilities regulatory analyst for the North Carolina Department of Commerce.

Commissioner Karen Kemerait noted that the utilities do not want specific large load tariffs in North Carolina, arguing their current rate structures allocate costs fairly for any new load, and asked staff members for their response.

“If we decide to do nothing in terms of a new tariff in the next three years, the large load is already going to be here,” Metz said. “They’re going to be under a different tariff design.”

Staff want the commission to start working on large load tariffs now so that they are in place once the new loads start to make a major impact on North Carolina, he added.

NCUC Public Staff’s chart showing the megawatts of demand where different states’ large load tariffs kick in | NCUC Public Staff

“There is this variability in load forecasting that others have touched on — who will and won’t show up — and how that will change even in a relatively short time period means that the earlier we can get ahead of this and establish something that helps set guidelines as to what the large load customers can come in to expect,” Fahey said. “And that gets into potential improvements in forecasting and a better understanding from that customer’s perspective, especially if they’re cross-shopping against different states.”

Lucas Fykes, policy director of the Data Center Coalition, said in testimony Oct. 14 that his group has been involved in the development of large load tariffs around the country, and many start to kick in for customers with demands of 50 to 100 MW, though on the lower end that can start to impact major industrial sites – not just data centers. The main issue is that no group of customers is singled out and that cost allocations are fair to the large loads, he said.

“Certainty is very important for planning and operational purposes,” Fykes said. “We are leaning in as an organization, and many of our members are individually leaning in, in support of taking traditional terms that were usually in ESAs and putting those into tariff requirements that are fair and equitable.”

Large load tariffs vary by utility and states because the facts on the ground are different, but Daymark Energy Advisors consultant Jeffrey Bower (a witness for the Environmental Defense Fund) said some best practices have become apparent.

“Customers don’t want to invest unless they are clear about what their obligations are long term,” Bower said. “Utilities don’t want to invest in new infrastructure unless they’re clear that the customers are going to be there and are going to be contributing meaningfully to the cost of that infrastructure.”

Contract terms need to be shared with prospective customers early in the process, and defined rate classes that acknowledge their specific needs are important for certainty. Termination fees are another important part of the toolkit.

“The next principle, which has been discussed a bit, is the equitable cost allocation,” Bower said. “And so that’s a fundamental principle around cost causation and allocation, which protects existing customers, creates fair rates for new customers and aligns the incentives for efficient utilization of grid resources.”

AEP Ohio’s new large load tariff already has had a major effect on the pipeline of large loads looking to connect to its system. (See PUCO: Data Centers Must Guarantee Power Purchases from AEP Ohio.)

“Just last week, AEP announced that since enacting the tariff, its pipeline of data centers had fallen from 30 GW down to 13 GW,” Bower said. “And so, this is clearly a big impact of the tariff design. It’s up for debate whether this drop signifies a reduction in economic development, or if it’s a decrease in speculative interconnection requests.”

The Role of Flexibility in Meeting Demand

With speed to market and the industry’s ability to meet demand that is projected to grow faster than new, firm capacity can come online, demand flexibility from data centers has been discussed as a way to square that circle.

Duke University fellow Tyler Norris, who authored a widely cited paper on the subject, testified at the NCUC’s technical conference. (See US Grid Has Flexible ‘Headroom’ for Data Center Demand Growth.)

“Our goals for this were to support regulators and stakeholders in identifying strategies and tactics to accommodate this load growth without compromising the reliability, affordability or progress on decarbonization,” Norris said.

The study is based on examining the 22 largest balancing authorities in the country, which account for 95% of its total demand for electricity.

“Current expectations are that AI-specialized data centers will represent the single largest share of U.S. electricity load growth over the next five to seven years, and could represent up to 44% through 2028 alone,” Norris said.

Coupled with the need to maintain reserve margins, the highest forecasts indicate national peak load growth of 180 GW by 2030 alone. Norris said that easily could rise from 700 GW today to 850 GW in the next decade, which would exceed the supply chains for new gas turbines.

“We don’t know exactly how many turbines will be available,” he added. “The current estimate suggests 60 to 80 GW by 2030. Mitsubishi says that they are ramping up production.”

An example from the Duke University data center report showing how little demand flexibility is needed to unlock spare capacity | Duke University

Battery storage can help; solar still is economical; and eventually small modular reactors or other new technologies will become available.

“We’re going to have to get creative with other solutions,” Norris said. “And so that’s why, for us, there’s an emphasis here on bringing the demand side into the equation more, so that we can utilize the existing grid that we’ve already paid for.”

In the Southeast, the bulk power system has an average and median load factor of about 53%, and it is stretched to the limit only on the coldest winter mornings and late afternoons on the hottest days of summer.

“We’re talking in the range of 50 to 200 hours per year that we’re building the system out to,” Norris said.

His study found that just 1% of demand flexibility from data centers could unlock 126 GW of capacity around the country; 0.5% could unlock 98 GW; and 0.25% for 76 GW. Duke’s system in North Carolina could add 4.1 GW of new demand with 0.5% flexibility from data centers.

Data centers can achieve flexibility through on-site resources such as batteries or backup generation, shifting computing load to other facilities in regions not affected by peak demands, or curtailing their activity in response to price signals.

NCUC Chair William Brawley asked whether computing would shift offshore if that policy was adopted nationally.

“There could be the possibility, perhaps, on the non-national security things, where that might actually be somewhere in Asia. Is that not a potential unintended consequence of this policy?” he asked.

That kind of spatial flexibility is an advanced capability for the tech firms building out data centers, and it has not been tested at scale, Norris said.

“It may be worth noting that it’s the policy of this administration to encourage data center development abroad, including in the Middle East, and there’s been major deals announced in terms of chip sales and exports of U.S.-manufactured gas turbines to the Saudis to support data center development there,” he added.

Norris said he is a big believer that winning the “AI race” is important and leveraging grid flexibility here could help.

“We can’t build infrastructure as fast as the Chinese, and so I view this kind of system optimization and using technology to get more out of the grid we already have, or whatever we’re building towards, is actually a critical source of national competitiveness because we’re just going to have constraints on how much we can build very quickly,” Norris said.

FERC Sides with San Francisco in PG&E Cost Allocation Dispute

FERC sided with San Francisco in the city’s dispute with PG&E over cost allocation provisions in a wholesale distribution contract, finding PG&E improperly required the city to bear the cost of system upgrades instead of allocating costs among all beneficiaries.

The Oct. 16 order affirms an administrative law judge’s previous finding and directs PG&E to revise its wholesale distribution tariff within 60 days and issue refunds to its wholesale distribution customers (ER20-2878).

FERC found that under the company’s cost allocation provisions, the City and County of San Francisco would shoulder the entire cost of upgrades to distribution systems and facilities even though the utility’s retail customers also benefited from those improvements. That scenario results in a violation of FERC’s cost causation principles.

PG&E spokesperson Jennifer Robison told RTO Insider that the utility appreciates FERC’s “thoughtful review of our filing.”

“Our goal in updating PG&E’s wholesale distribution tariff was to simplify and standardize wholesale distribution service to eliminate legacy preferential treatment and to ensure that all PG&E customers are treated fairly and equally,” Robison said. “We designed the updated tariff proposal to help achieve FERC’s goal of ensuring reasonable rates, terms and conditions. We understand the City and County of San Francisco’s concerns and have been working with them on a mutually agreeable resolution.”

The underlying case concerns PG&E’s wholesale distribution tariff, which governs how wholesale distribution customers, such as San Francisco, accesses the company’s services. Wholesale customers use PG&E facilities to access the CAISO-controlled grid to make wholesale sales and purchases, according to the order.

PG&E updated the wholesale distribution tariff’s terms and conditions in 2020 and transitioned to a formula rate. San Francisco protested the update, arguing that PG&E proposed definitions of “upgrades” and “direct assignment facilities” were discriminatory.

The case has taken several twists and turns since 2020, including settlement discussions. The Oct. 16 order deals with two remaining issues:

    • whether PG&E’s treatment of the costs of upgrades to the distribution system under the wholesale distribution tariff is just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential.
    • whether PG&E’s treatment of the costs of direct assignment facilities — facilities that are used by only a single wholesale customer — under the tariff is just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential.

In agreeing with the administrative law judge, FERC said “PG&E’s proposed treatment of the cost of upgrades violates the commission’s cost causation and comparability principles and is therefore unjust and unreasonable.”

“Specifically, we agree that under the definition of upgrades in the [wholesale distribution tariff], PG&E’s retail customers may benefit from the use of the upgrades,” the order stated. “Thus, consistent with the commission’s cost causation principle, the costs of upgrades must be allocated among customers that benefit from the upgrade rather than directly assigned to the wholesale distribution customer that requested the upgrade.”

On the issue of the costs of direct assignment facilities, FERC sided with the administrative judge’s reasoning that because those facilities “solely benefit the requesting wholesale distribution customer” it is “therefore inappropriate to roll in installation costs for direct assignment facilities to the wholesale distribution revenue requirement or otherwise assign those costs to retail or other wholesale customers.”

However, PG&E failed to show that it treats retail customers’ facilities on the same basis and that wholesale customers end up shouldering some of the costs for retail facilities, according to the order.

“The presiding judge found that for PG&E’s retail customers, PG&E does not assign itself the full costs of retail distribution line extensions,” the commission wrote. “Instead, the costs of those retail customer-driven facilities are rolled into the wholesale distribution revenue requirement and allocated to wholesale distribution customers using the load ratio share methodology,” the commission wrote.

“We affirm the presiding judge’s determination that PG&E’s proposed definition of direct assignment facilities in the [wholesale distribution tariff] does not comply with the commission’s comparability principle and is unjust and unreasonable and unduly discriminatory or preferential,” the order stated. “Additionally, we direct PG&E to submit a compliance filing revising the [wholesale distribution tariff] in accordance with the initial decision and this order, make refunds, and submit a refund report.”

Uncertain VPP Program in California Sets Capacity Record

A virtual power plant program with an indeterminate future set a record in 2025 for the capacity the plant contributed to California’s electricity grid.

The California Energy Commission’s VPP program has seen a big increase in available capacity since the end of the 2024 season, CEC analyst Brian Vollbrecht said at an Oct. 15 workshop.

About 38,000 customers participated in the program in 2024, providing about 288 MW to the grid. In August, the program’s capacity exceeded 400 MW.

The VPP program is part of the demand side grid support (DSGS) program, which is within the state’s strategic energy reliability reserve. The reserve provides electricity supply and load reduction and has a goal of 7,000 MW by 2030.

The DSGS program has four options. Most of the workshop focused on VPP Option 3, which rewards battery owners who provide capacity to the grid during energy emergency alerts or when market day-ahead prices go above $200/MWh. Option 3 participants provide this capacity during extreme weather and grid events from May to October.

No residential resources with durations beyond two hours participated in the VPP, and nearly half of the VPP capacity was in the Pacific Gas and Electric region, with the rest in the Southern California Edison region and the San Diego Gas & Electric region.

At the workshop, Robert Castaneda, board president of the Low-Income Oversight Board of the California Public Utilities Commission, asked if the CEC had a socio-demographic breakdown of VPP participants.

Vollbrecht said that this type of data was not a part of the analysis “this time around.”

“But if you have questions about that, feel free to follow up with us,” Vollbrecht said.

An Unknown Future

Although the VPP program reached a new high in 2025, California lawmakers decided not to provide additional funding for the DSGS program. (See VPPs Suffer Setbacks in Calif. Legislative Session.)

DSGS’s funding has experienced “various shifts since its inception due to state fiscal pressures,” Deana Carrillo, director of the CEC’s Reliability, Renewable Energy and Decarbonization Incentives Division, said at the workshop.

“And I recognize that this is challenging for private industry that is participating in the program, because while we’re attesting approaches to grow demand and incorporating the lessons learned, there’s also a need for consistency and a glide path to inform your business models,” she said.

There are, however, “active, ongoing discussions about the program’s budget,” Carrillo added.

“Staff is having conversations with leadership to identify stable funding beyond 2026 and continue the program’s growth into test concepts,” she said.

In total, DSGS’s budget is $109.5 million, with about $30 million remaining at the end of 2025, CEC program manager Payam Narvand said at the workshop.

CEC staff proposes continuing the DSGS program into the 2026 program season. Any changes to the program will be informed by a public engagement process and approved at a CEC business meeting, Narvand added.

How ISOs and RTOs are Addressing Large Load Growth

Data center-fueled demand growth continues to soar while reserve margins continue to shrink. Meanwhile, the timelines for building load versus building generation and transmission are wildly out of sync.

Large loads can stand up in one to two years or less when co-located with generation, while new generation interconnection routinely takes years, and major transmission lines average about a decade from conception to energization.

Because data centers can be developed significantly faster than the generation and transmission required to serve them, NERC has flagged the speed and scale of data center buildout as a near-term reliability challenge. Large loads also pose risks to long-term planning, operations, grid stability, balancing, power quality, forecasting, modeling and grid security.

In light of the rising operational and resource adequacy risks, federal agencies, regional organizations, power system operators and utilities are scrambling to analyze and address the impacts related to emerging large loads.

The Department of Energy (DOE) has launched the Speed to Power initiative to accelerate the large-scale generation and transmission additions needed to support data center buildout and the AI race. FERC has held technical conferences and written letters around these issues, while NERC and other regional reliability organizations have created task forces and studied the risks of these emerging large loads.

ERCOT, SPP and PJM are paving the way with large load interconnection and participation initiatives.

Just How Big is Large Load Growth?

U.S. data center electricity use rose from 58 TWh in 2014 to 176 TWh in 2023 and is estimated to reach 325-580 TWh by 2028. That translates into roughly 6.7 to 12% of U.S. electricity by 2028 (up from about 4.4% in 2023), according to DOE, underscoring how quickly this new class of demand is growing.

Growth is highly geographic, with PJM, the Western Interconnection and ERCOT leading the way due to the major data center hot spots in Virginia, Texas and the Northwest.

Since 2020, PJM has added about 26.5 GW and ERCOT about 13.2 GW of load‑center capacity, with more in the queue but significant uncertainty on what actually will be built. SPP also has positioned itself to capture a meaningful slice of data center growth. (See this for more information on current and future data center hot spots.)

ERCOT and PJM’s load capacity additions are projected to skyrocket in the coming years, but it’s still uncertain how much load will get built out.

Characteristics and Risks of Large Loads

Large loads today differ from conventional commercial loads. Large loads can be either large individual consumers or collections of smaller loads that create significant demand and strain on the power grid. Most talked about are data centers, including AI hyperscale data centers, but NERC categorizes large loads as follows:

    • Data centers: These include traditional data centers, AI training facilities, AI inference facilities and cryptocurrency mining facilities.
    • Industrial load: This includes semiconductor and electronics manufacturing, mining and mineral processing, oil and gas production, metals and heavy manufacturing, and chemical and petrochemical processing.
    • Hydrogen production (electrolyzer) facilities.
    • Aggregate loads: These are primarily EV charging centers and electrified heating and cooling. Large loads are being built quickly, at large unit sizes, in tight geographic clusters. Many of them, particularly data centers, can shift their computational demand rapidly in response to changing energy pricing, emission intensity and currency pricing.

Compared to traditional electricity load growth, today’s large loads are far more location-constrained (e.g., loads need available grid capacity, access to robust fiber optic networks and water access or a suitable climate for cost-effective cooling). They’re also far more schedule‑driven by corporate road maps and much less interruptible than conventional commercial load.

NERC ranked the risks from large loads:

    • high-priority risks: long-term planning for resource adequacy, operations of balancing and reserves, and grid stability.
    • medium-priority risks: short‑ and long-term demand forecasting, real‑time coordination, transmission adequacy, frequency stability, cybersecurity, manual load‑shed obligations and automatic under-frequency load shed programs.
    • low-priority risks: power quality (harmonics, voltage fluctuations) and system restoration following load shedding events.

Consequently, large loads are characterized not only by their MW capacity but also by their behaviors that pose grid reliability risks. The consensus defines large load capacity as greater than 75 MW, but voltage level, local system strength and relative size to the area matter as much as raw MW. Their behaviors include ramp rates, ride‑through behavior, power‑electronics content, voltage sensitivity, predictability and internal segmentation.

Existing ISO Large Load Constructs

Before September 2025, ERCOT and NYISO were the only ISOs to have requirements for large load interconnection and preliminary definitions and programs for large loads. In 2022, NERC modified its requirements and measures for facility interconnection studies (FAC-002-4), but it didn’t have any megawatt threshold or special process for large loads.

ERCOT established an interim large‑load interconnection process in 2022 that requires transmission service providers to submit interconnection studies that meet the NERC Reliability Standard FAC-002-2 requirements for each applicable large load seeking to interconnect within two years. ERCOT formalized and improved this process April 15, 2025, after approving Nodal Protocol Revision Request 1234 (NPRR1234) and its accompanying Planning Guide Revision Request 115 (PGRR115).

NPRR1234 updated ERCOT’s definition of a large load to be one or more facilities at a single site with an aggregate peak demand greater than 75 MW behind one or more common points of interconnection or service delivery points. NPRR1234 also formalized interconnection and modeling standards for large loads, set standards for loads of more than 25 MW, set requirements for a reactive power study requirement for resource entities adding more than 20 MW of load at a site with existing generation, and established a standardized large load interconnection study. The study is conducted by the transmission service provider with ERCOT review and is described in PGRR115.

In NYISO, interconnection studies are required for loads greater than 10 MW at more than 115 kV or greater than 80 MW at more than 115 kV. Smaller projects are handled entirely by the applicable transmission operator’s interconnection procedures.

Federal Activity

Demand growth outpacing the grid buildout, alongside several executive orders relating to energy dominance and AI, have led DOE to launch the Speed to Power initiative.

The initiative kicked off Sept. 18, 2025, with a request for information. It aims to accelerate large-scale additions of generation and transmission so the U.S. “has the power needed to win the global artificial intelligence race” and can continue to serve fast-growing loads.

The RFI seeks details on infrastructure projects that would quickly enable 3 to 20 GW of incremental load, such as new interregional transmission of at least 1,000 MVA, reconductoring of existing lines of at least 500 MVA, restarts of retired thermal plants using existing interconnections and construction of new generation portfolios. MVA measures the apparent power in an AC transmission system, essentially the combined voltage and current capacity a line or transformer can handle. The RFI also asks how DOE should best deploy existing tools and funding programs.

RFI responses are due Nov. 21, 2025.

Texas Senate Bill 6, PUCT and ERCOT Action

ERCOT is seeing some of the largest forecast load growth from data centers, with 138 GW of large loads expected on its grid by 2030.

To address the reliability concerns this raises, the Texas state government pushed the envelope with its Senate Bill 6, which passed on June 20, 2025. It directs the Public Utility Commission of Texas to adopt large‑load interconnection standards for new or expanded large loads greater than 75 MW at a single site in ERCOT, along with study fees ($100,000 minimum initial interconnection fee), site control, uniform financial commitment rules, grid infrastructure cost allocation and a requirement to disclose to utilities any duplicate interconnection requests in Texas.

SB6 also directs the PUCT to develop one mandatory and one voluntary demand management program. The mandatory program requires protocols to curtail large loads of greater than 75 MW that are interconnected after Dec. 31, 2025, during firm load shed (with some exceptions for critical load).

The voluntary program, the Large Load Demand Management Service, requires ERCOT to competitively procure demand reductions from loads greater than 75 MW in advance of anticipated emergency conditions.

The PUCT projects for SB 6 are PUCT filings 58317 and 58479.

ERCOT has begun related notices and data collection but is prioritizing its Real-Time Co-optimization + Batteries (RTC+B) initiative, which goes live Dec. 5, 2025.

SPP’s HILLs and CHILLs

SPP recognizes how much uncertainty there is with the load of the future and subsequently has designed a three-phase project that aims to set SPP up for success in all likely electricity load growth scenarios. SPP’s three future large load services are:

    • a high-impact large load generation interconnection assessment (HILLGA)
    • a conditional high-impact large load service (CHILLS)
    • a price adaptive load (PAL) service.

The new services aim to reduce interconnection times with a 90-day study-and-approval process for HILLGA and CHILLS, provide flexibility for connection or operation of large loads within system limits and reduce transmission upgrade cost uncertainty. This will offer a clear path to interconnection agreements while maintaining SPP’s reliability standards and transparency in cost allocation.

The first phase of the project began with SPP’s revision request (RR696), which was approved by SPP’s Board of Directors on Sept. 16. It defines high-impact large loads (HILLs) and introduces a generation-supported HILLGA. A HILL is a non-conforming load facility interconnected to the grid that can pose reliability risks.

Actual and projected large load capacity additions by ISO | Yes Energy using Yes Energy’s Infrastructure Insights data

The HILLGA service offers HILLs two paths for studying and interconnecting associated generation: the common bus path and the local area path.

The common bus path is for HILLs with supporting generation behind the same point of interconnection as the HILL, where generation won’t be injected into the grid.

The local area path is a five-year service term for HILL-supporting generation that’s within two buses. With the local area path, energy flows on the grid are limited by the HILL’s needs and system capacity.

RR696 initially had designs for a third HILLGA path, deliverability area and for a CHILLS. They were removed from RR696 following feedback from stakeholders, who wanted more time to review and revise the deliverability area and CHILLS designs. The CHILLS service was introduced later with RR720, which was voted on and failed to pass in SPP’s Market Working Group meeting Sept. 23-24. This will delay SPP’s timeline, which initially sought to vote on RR720 in the Oct. 14-15 MOPC meeting.

The CHILLS will be a new curtailable transmission service available to HILLs that don’t have sufficient transmission capacity or generation to serve all their energy requirements. The portion of a HILL’s energy needs that can’t be served on a firm basis will be acquired on a conditional basis, so CHILLS is interruptible as needed to maintain reliability.

Conditional HILLs don’t need to be supported by generation, but they are required to transition to firm service by the end of the term. In a notable change from its old design in RR696, conditional HILLs must begin the process of establishing firm service within the first year. The CHILLS term now is up to seven years long, increased from five years.

SPP also has discussed a price adaptive load service for any load willing to take price‑responsive withdrawal based on real‑time pricing. SPP aims to create the revision request by January 2026 and get it approved in April 2026. This timeline may be delayed due to the recent failure to pass RR720 in the September Market Working Group.

SPP’s load-centric interconnection lane compresses the study cycle by pairing load with proximate generation and using conditional service while enduring solutions catch up.

While Texas’ SB 6 is the most comprehensive legislative package to date specifically aimed at large loads, SPP is leading the way among ISOs and RTOs with its large load interconnection lanes.

PJM’s Critical Issue Fast Path for Large Load Additions

On Aug. 8, 2025, PJM’s Board initiated the Critical Issue Fast Path (CIFP) to develop reliability-based solutions so large loads can interconnect quickly without causing resource inadequacy.

This initiative was motivated by PJM’s high capacity prices and looming resource adequacy crisis. PJM’s independent market monitor, Monitoring Analytics, found in its analysis of PJM’s 2026/27 capacity auction that data center load growth was the primary reason for high capacity prices. Nearly 100% of the offered supply was committed in the auction, and data center load drove a $7.2 billion, or 82.1%, increase in capacity market revenues.

PJM’s 2025 long-term load forecast showed PJM still may face unmet demand even if everything is built in the generation interconnection queue.

PJM is targeting a FERC filing by December 2025 and aims to implement in time for the 2028/29 capacity auction.

The CIFP for large load additions is evaluating criteria for large‑load interconnection and coordination with load-serving entities/electric distribution companies (critical for data centers). It’s also addressing alignment of large loads connecting to the power grid with the obligation to also provide some generation capacity to contribute to ensuring resource adequacy in the grid, rather than relying on others to do so.

PJM’s Stage 1 meeting was held Sept. 15, and the initial proposal centered around three large load interconnection options: BYOG (“bring your own generation”) credits for load that arranges new supply, demand response pathways and a transitional non‑capacity‑backed load (NCBL) service that lets incremental large loads connect quickly but assigns them a lower curtailment priority during emergencies if capacity is short.

After listening to stakeholder feedback, PJM’s current proposal has three components:

    • Price-responsive demand (PRD) and demand response: PJM removed the mandatory NCBL concept and instead will use existing DR and modified PRD products to facilitate a process similar to voluntary NCBL. PJM proposes replacing the dynamic retail rate requirements seen in PRD with an energy market offer price. Load could elect not to take on a capacity obligation, requiring it to reduce demand during stressed system conditions rather than pay for capacity.
    • Load forecasting enhancements: These include allowing state commissions to review and provide feedback on large load adjustments prior to finalizing load forecasts, and add a duplication check in load analysis subcommittee submissions. Each annual large load adjustment submission must inquire and report whether customer interconnection requests are duplicative (inside/outside PJM) and quantify the duplicated megawatts.
    • Expedited Interconnection Track (EIT): Introduce a 10-month EIT for “sponsored” generation that operates outside and in parallel to the PJM cycle process (the standard generation interconnection process). The EIT would be limited in volume and have strict entry requirements to minimize impact on PJM’s cycle process.

Alternative approaches for procuring new resources on a longer-term basis still are in discussion and may be included in the CIFP for large load additions. PJM also mentioned that the manual load shed allocation mechanism needs to be reviewed following the conclusion of this CIFP.

Conclusion

Unprecedented data center-driven demand growth requires unique solutions to address the rising resource adequacy and grid operations risks. There is a timing gap with large loads arriving in months to a few years, while new generation and transmission take far longer.

Besides being large, these loads ramp quickly, are electronics-heavy and location-constrained, and can be price-adaptive, so treating them like conventional commercial growth will miss real reliability and planning risks.

ERCOT, SPP and PJM are leading the charge, creating large load-specific programs to speed up the interconnection and offer unique participation models for large loads and the necessary accompanying supply and transmission capacity.

The path forward includes standardized definitions and studies across ISOs/RTOs, improved participation models and forecasting for high-impact large loads, price-responsive operation, improved time-to-connect, conditional service, curtailment performance and progress to firm capacity.

Tim Hough is a market analyst on the market monitoring team at Yes Energy. RTO Insider is a wholly owned subsidiary of Yes Energy.

PNM Accounting Request Revives EDAM vs. Markets+ Debate

State regulators approved an accounting order for Public Service Company of New Mexico’s participation in CAISO’s Extended Day-Ahead Market, in a case that rekindled the debate over which day-ahead market PNM should choose.

The New Mexico Public Regulation Commission voted 3-0 on Oct. 16 to approve the order, which allows PNM to create a regulatory asset for its EDAM costs. That means PNM will track its EDAM costs separately from other expenses and later seek to recover the costs in a rate case.

PNM estimated its EDAM implementation costs will be $11.1 million in capital costs, $3.1 million in one-time operations and maintenance expenses, and $1.4 million to $1.6 million a year in ongoing costs from 2028 to 2030.

The company announced its decision to join EDAM in November 2024 and plans to start participating in fall 2027. (See PNM Picks CAISO’s EDAM and PNM Signs Agreement to Join CAISO’s EDAM.)

PNM’s request for an accounting order sparked filings from those who supported the request and those who believe the company should have chosen SPP’s Markets+ instead of EDAM.

“To me, it’s kind of nuts that this case became a referendum on market choice, or parties tried to make it so,” Commissioner Pat O’Connell said before the vote.

O’Connell said keeping EDAM expenses in a separate account would make it easier to later inspect the costs and compare them to benefits of market participation.

The commission found that it is “reasonable” for PNM to “expend costs in joining EDAM.” The prudency of the expenditures will be evaluated during a future rate case, when the amount of spending is known.

The commission didn’t authorize PNM to include carrying charges in its regulatory asset, saying that doing so would constitute “ratemaking treatment in advance.”

Parties have until Nov. 17 to file a motion for rehearing.

Regional Market Proceeding

In a Sept. 11 filing, Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association asked the commission to deny PNM’s application. Tri-State pointed to PNM’s 2018 request for an accounting order for the costs of joining CAISO’s Western Energy Imbalance Market. In that case, the commission granted the order without making a reasonableness determination.

Commission Chair Gabriel Aguilera said PNM’s new request was unique because it followed a lengthy commission proceeding that examined the potential benefits of regional market participation by the state’s investor-owned utilities. The proceeding included a series of workshops where studies on projected benefits of market participation were presented. Utilities and stakeholders weighed in with numerous filings.

Utilities were not required to obtain commission approval for their day-ahead market participation. But the commission issued a set of guiding principles in November 2024 intended to guide the utilities’ market decisions. (See NM PRC Issues ‘Guiding Principles’ for Electricity Market Participation.)

“PNM’s decision to join EDAM is not a decision that was made quickly or without thorough consideration,” the commission said in its order. Rather, it is a result of “the time, effort and investigation put in by multiple entities that participated in [the docket].”

EDAM Decision Questioned

In its filing, PNM pointed to a Brattle Group study that projected benefits from joining EDAM would be $20 million a year vs. $8 million a year for joining Markets+. PNM said the difference in benefits was a key factor in its decision to choose EDAM.

Tri-State argued that the $20 million and $8 million figures are based on PNM and El Paso Electric participating in the same market. But El Paso Electric has announced its intention to participate in Markets+, while PNM is going with EDAM. (See El Paso Electric to Join SPP’s Markets+ in 2028.)

Tri-State said the benefit difference “is not actually driven by the adjusted production cost but is instead driven by different expectations of congestion revenues and bilateral trading revenue.” A presentation on the findings in August 2024 did not say “with any level of certainty how likely these benefits are to materialize,” Tri-State added.

Tri-State said that key considerations from the commission’s guiding principles — including greenhouse gas tracking, fair governance, seams management and market design — favor PNM’s participation in Markets+ or SPP’s RTO rather than EDAM.

PNM countered by saying its choice of EDAM was a discretionary action.

“PNM’s decision to join the EDAM is not properly before the commission in this proceeding; it is a decision PNM made 10 months ago and informed the commission of at that time,” PNM wrote in a reply to Tri-State.

Western Resource Advocates (WRA) also weighed in on PNM’s accounting order request, saying PNM had acknowledged the commission’s guiding principles for choosing a day-ahead market and presented “a reliable cost-benefit analysis study performed by the Brattle Group.”

WRA recommended the commission approve PNM’s request for an accounting order with the addition of certain reporting requirements before and after it enters EDAM.

The commission’s order directs PNM to provide updates on any “substantive changes to the market” and to file quarterly reports after its EDAM participation begins. The reports will detail cost savings to customers, transmission availability and use, renewable resource curtailment, resource planning impacts and market performance during extreme weather, among other issues.

After two years, PNM must file the reports annually.

NYISO Notes ‘Fluctuation’ of Outlooks for Grid Reliability

The NYISO Operating Committee voted to approve the ISO’s draft Comprehensive Reliability Plan (CRP), though environmental groups and the Market Monitoring Unit voiced concerns with the wide range of predictions, the lack of identification of needed market changes and the potentially growing disconnect between other planning studies.

An early draft of the CRP, issued Oct. 7, called for “several thousand megawatts of new dispatchable generation by the 2030s,” based on a broad range of possible scenarios for load growth and supply. (See NYISO Reliability Plan Calls for ‘New Dispatchable Generation’.)

The newest draft, which will go before the Management Committee on Oct. 29, accounts for the third-quarter Short-Term Assessment of Reliability (STAR) and its identification of an immediate reliability need for New York City. (See related story, NYISO Again Identifies Reliability Need for NYC.) It was approved over the opposition of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

“The way this is all being presented in this reliability report is going to create great levels of alarm and confusion,” NRDC’s Chris Casey said at the committee’s meeting Oct. 16. “The technical experts understand it’s informational, but I don’t think it’s going to be interpreted that way.”

In a newly added sentence to the draft, the ISO acknowledges that, “as demonstrated by the study-by-study fluctuation in the system conditions and associated risks, the NYISO’s current approach in evaluating the reliability of the system is no longer sufficient for future planning studies.”

Casey argued that while the CRP talked up the importance of a strong market to meet reliability needs, parts of the report gave the impression that markets will not be able to solve the need. Some of the recommendations would exacerbate the disconnect between reliability studies and the Installed Reserve Margin on which prices are based, he said.

“Your point is really well taken,” said Ross Altman, senior manager of reliability planning for NYISO. “We need to discuss with stakeholders which specific range of forecasts or any of these factors we should consider an actionable reliability determination. What we are trying to say strongly is that it shouldn’t just be based on one. Combine that with the narrowing margins, and we are on a knife’s edge with every analysis we do.”

Much of the committee’s discussion centered on how to quantify reliability risks on the grid and how this would interact with existing planning processes.

“I definitely share some of the concerns that were shared by previous commenters,” said Pallas LeeVanSchaick, vice president at Potomac Economics, the grid operator’s MMU. He said NYISO’s analysis acknowledges a broad range of supply and demand outcomes but treats them as “random events.”

“The reality is the role of the market is to help moderate excess supply or insufficient supply,” LeeVanSchaick said. “The reality is when you look at the risks of aging generation and lack of supply, by far the biggest factors for those outcomes are not the age of the resources but a mix of environmental policies and market incentives for maintaining the generation and repairing significant failures.”

Liam Baker, senior vice president of regulatory affairs at Alpha Generation, weighed in as “the owner of the largest aging fleet.”

“When these things break … they break in such a manner that they need to be completely rebuilt,” Baker said. “The replacement parts we use nowadays are bespoke. We are … cannibalizing our existing fleet. … We are literally cannibalizing Gowanus 1 and 4 to keep Gowanus 2 and 3 and Narrows 1 and 2 running.”

Baker said NYISO was “wise” to highlight aging generation, but he wanted to make sure the ISO and other stakeholders understood how dire the situation was: Replacement parts for the plants often have to be custom made — or even purchased on eBay.

Matt Schwall, director of regulatory affairs for Alpha Generation, said this point was “critical.” The retirement dates for Gowanus and Narrows, which drove the reliability needs findings in the Q3 STAR, were not based solely on environmental rules, he said.

“We are proposing to retire these units because they are no longer economic to operate,” Schwall said. “There are other things driving generator retirements other than being unable to comply with state regulations.”

SPP Stakeholders Trim $2.5B from 2025 Transmission Plan

[EDITOR’S NOTE: A previous version of this story’s headline incorrectly said that $3.8 billion had been trimmed.]

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — It took six votes during more than four hours of discussion — over the course of two days of meetings — before SPP stakeholders endorsed the 2025 10-year transmission plan and some of its proposed 765-kV lines, trimming about $2.5 billion in costs from the portfolio.

Members of the Markets and Operations Policy Committee on Oct. 13 first rejected their own proposal to defer the three southern legs of a proposed 765-kV overlay that would have shaved $3.83 billion in costs off the portfolio. They then shot down a motion to endorse the plan and the assessment report as modified by two stakeholder groups.

Neither motion received more than 57.5% approval, far short of MOPC’s 66.7% threshold.

After a night’s rest, SPP staff regrouped Oct. 14 during MOPC’s second day with three new proposals. They asked members to endorse:

    • the 2025 Integrated Transmission Planning assessment report as having been completed according to the tariff;
    • construction permits for the report’s 345-kV projects and three 765-kV reliability projects on the eastern and western legs of the RTO’s southern extra-high-voltage overlay; and
    • permits for the three 765-kV economic projects looping the overlay’s two legs together. The Crawfish Draw-Minco-Seminole-Anthem segments total about 515 miles and are estimated to cost $3.83 billion.

Referring the previous days’ voting “failures,” Casey Cathey, SPP vice president of engineering, asked MOPC for a “more clear and granular” direction for the Board of Directors to better prepare it for its consideration of the ITP when it meets in November.

SPP’s southern 765-kV backbone, including the Seminole-Anthem project | SPP

Staff have been studying about $18 billion in transmission projects as part of the 2025 assessment. The grid operator has proposed deferring $7 billion in 765-kV projects, reducing the portfolio to $11.16 billion for up to 50 construction permits to meet reliability and short-term needs. It has projected benefit-cost ratios of between 10:1 and 15:1. (See SPP Wants to Defer $7B in 765-kV Projects to 2026.)

Cathey reiterated the RTO’s cost-control measures and outlined several recent and in-flight tariff changes that improve the SPP’s cost-estimate process. He said the 2025 ITP’s 765-kV economic projects will have more control measures and conditions, including alignment with the 2026 ITP 765-kV overlay.

The grid operator was stung recently when cost estimates for its first 765 project, Southwest Public Service’s 345-mile Potter-Crossroads-Phantom transmission line that was part of the 2024 ITP, more than doubled from $1.69 billion to $3.62 billion. It took several more months of meetings for SPP to secure the project’s approval after SPS staff refined the RTO’s project projections. (See SPP Board Approves 765-kV Project’s Increased Cost.)

“We just went through that with the Potter-to-Crossroads-to-Phantom facility, so everybody has kind of a clear understanding of how that might work,” Cathey said, calling it a “good example” of SPP’s existing cost-control measures. “That project obviously came in higher for a number of reasons, but it also helped from benefits, cost-ratio and reliability needs perspective.”

MOPC members provided the “granular” feedback with their concerns on affordability, cost allocations, inequitable benefits and uncertainty about moving too fast or whether load growth slows. They questioned staff about the lack of analysis in the two motions to approve transmission projects and raised concerns about reliability concerns when 765-kV projects are set aside.

NextEra Energy Resources’ Jeff Wells objected to voting on separate construction permits rather than the entire portfolio.

“It was designed as a whole. It was studied as a whole, a complete portfolio. It works in concert,” he said. “Piecemealing it apart, simply because maybe we don’t like the designation, potentially, of reliability or economic [projects] … when you piecemeal that, you run the risk of losing the benefit that the portfolio has as a whole.”

“SPP has a really tremendous opportunity for growth with the industrial and technological developments that we’re seeing in this country; load growth as a result is also predicted to be tremendous,” said Jennifer Solomon, also with NextEra. “If we don’t build this portfolio as a whole, the development may not come, because what we’re seeing is that there may not be room for it. MISO, ERCOT and PJM are all moving aggressively forward with 765-kV lines just to keep up with the loads that they’re seeing.”

MOPC easily endorsed the first two motions. However, the motion to endorse the three 765-kV economic lines fell woefully short at 43.8% approval.

As staff mulled next steps, Director Steve Wright weighed in. He pushed for compromise among stakeholders and called for a better understanding of mitigating risks with large transmission facilities.

“One of the things that’s been ingrained in me in the three years on the board is it’s a hallmark of the board that we really want a high level of consensus,” he said. “We don’t have it here. The question is, what’s going to happen over the next couple of weeks? I really hope the Members Committee vote [an advisory ballot that precedes board votes] will not be the same vote as what we just had, because that just basically punts the issue to the board and is something that clearly there’s not much agreement around.”

American Electric Power’s Richard Ross echoed Wright in calling for a separate vote on the Seminole-Anthem portion of the 765-kV southern loop in the utility’s eastern Oklahoma service territory. The project is fast becoming a reliability project, Ross said, with 2.5 GW of load added to transmission service agreements after the 2025 ITP models were locked.

“That further solidifies that this will be a reliability project in the 2026 ITP,” Cathey said.

“I don’t want us to get away from this meeting without addressing that issue and mitigating the risk that we delay beginning work on that project as soon as possible,” Ross said, “begging” for one more vote “so that that message is clear to the board that we as a group agreed on moving forward with that particular project.”

MOPC endorsed the project’s approval and its projected $1.2 billion price tag, giving it 72.5% approval. Transmission owners voted 11-6 in favor, with one abstention, while transmission users approved the motion 45-11, with eight abstentions.

The committee’s actions reduce the 2025 ITP’s costs to $8.7 billion, SPP said. That still exceeds the record 2024 assessment, which approved permits for more than $7.6 billion in projects. (See SPP Stakeholders Endorse Record $7.65B Tx Plan.)

SPP COO Antoine Lucas promised staff will provide more information on cost-containment measures and risk mitigation as staff takes the ITP before state commissioners and the board, saying he understood the concerns being expressed. He said staff will continue to evaluate the $7 billion in deferred projects as load forecasts continue to evolve.

“This [2025 ITP] comes in the context of increasing strain on the existing transmission network,” he said. “The challenges that we’ve had to interconnect new generation and load without the need for tremendous new upgrade costs is a pretty good signal that the transmission system is at its limits. What we see every day in our [markets] is increasing levels of congestion, another very clear metric of very limited and — in some areas and cases — insufficient transmission.”

Staff have scheduled an education session for the Regional State Committee on Oct. 24. The state commissioners do not have any say over the ITP, but Cathey said the RTO will use the session to support any regulatory concerns or necessary additional policy.

The board will take up the package during its Nov. 4 quarterly meeting in Little Rock.

IESO Seeks to Expand Commercial DR

IESO hopes to curtail 100 MW of commercial HVAC load in 2026 under a new program targeted at resources available during system peaks, but not for the full six-month commitment of the capacity market.

The grid operator outlined the Save on Energy Commercial HVAC Demand Response Program in an engagement session Oct. 16. IESO hopes the program, expected to launch in June 2026, will scale to 230 MW at commercial and institutional facilities (e.g., retailers, offices, universities) in 2027.

Program participants will be required to respond to up to 10 events of up to three hours on business days between June 1 and Sept. 30. The events will be “typically between 3 and 7 p.m.,” IESO said in a presentation.

They will be paid based on the average megawatts curtailed per season. Settlement will be based on local distribution company revenue meter data, using the average megawatt reduction from the top eight of 10 events.

Requirements

Program participants must aggregate at least 500 kW of demand response load capacity and be able to monitor and verify load reductions, collect metering data and communicate with “program contributors” — the end-use facilities reducing demand.

Following the ISO’s first engagement session June 24, stakeholders called for flexible load eligibility and onboarding support for participants. The program will offer an incentive of $20/kW to offset contributors’ costs for metering, monitoring and control systems.

Stakeholders also identified LDCs as “key partners for coordination [and] visibility,” IESO said.

IESO’s Mohammed Yousif said LDCs also can participate as aggregators. “We’re not … limiting who participates into the program” other than the minimum 500-kW load, Yousif said. “LDCs may decide [on] different approaches.”

Stakeholders supported a day-ahead standby notice with same-day activation by midday. A standby notice will be issued no later than noon the day before the event, with activation notices sent no later than noon on the day of the event.

Non-HVAC Resources

Yousif said the program rules will specify non-HVAC measures that also will be eligible for participation. “The program will be predominantly HVAC — maybe 75% comes from HVAC and 25% comes from non-HVAC,” he said. “Battery energy storage … related to curtailment of HVAC systems could be considered as well.”

Antoni Paleshi, senior energy performance specialist for WSP, asked how owners of new buildings can estimate their contributions without any energy history.

“This is a pay-for-performance program,” Yousif said. “We could use the first few events as a way to … assess the estimate that is provided and adjust accordingly.”

IESO expects to issue the program rules by the end of November and complete program readiness by April.

PJM MRC/MC Preview: Oct. 23, 2025

Below is a summary of the agenda items scheduled to be brought to a vote at the PJM Markets and Reliability Committee and Members Committee meetings Oct. 23. Each item is listed by agenda number, description and projected time of discussion, followed by a summary of the issue and links to prior coverage in RTO Insider.

RTO Insider will cover the discussions and votes.

Markets and Reliability Committee

Consent Agenda (9:05-9:10)

The committee will be asked to endorse as part of its consent agenda:

B. proposed revisions to Manual 3A: Energy Management System Model Updates and Quality Assurance drafted through periodic review of the document. The proposed language reflects the sunsetting of the Data Management Subcommittee and its replacement with the Modeling Users Forum, which was intended to allow for a long-term perspective. (See “Stakeholders Endorse Manual Revisions Reflecting Creation of Modeling Users Forum,” PJM OC Briefs: Oct. 8, 2025.)

Endorsements (9:10-10:10)

  1. Wind and Solar Resource Dispatch in Real-time Market Clearing Engines (9:10-9:30)

PJM’s Vijay Shah will present a proposal to rework how wind and solar resources are dispatched in the real-time energy market. It would establish an Effective EcoMax parameter meant to more accurately capture how renewable resources are forecast to operate. It also would limit their ramping to 20% of their installed capacity per minute to reduce system volatility. (See “Renewable Dispatch Proposal Endorsed,” PJM MIC Briefs: Aug. 6, 2025.)

The committee will be asked to endorse the proposal and corresponding revisions to the tariff and Operating Agreement.

Issue Tracking: Wind and Solar Resource Dispatch in Real-time Market Clearing Engines

  1. Resource Scheduling Prior to the Day-ahead Energy Market (9:30-9:50)

PJM’s Phil D’Antonio will present tariff and OA language to implement the offer capping of resources scheduled in advance of the day-ahead energy market by committing them on their cost-based offers. The proposal was approved by the Market Implementation Committee during its Sept. 10 meeting with the intention of subsequently developing governing document language.

The committee will be asked to endorse both the proposal and the corresponding tariff and OA language. PJM would seek same-day endorsement by the MC if approved by the MRC.

Issue Tracking: Resource Scheduling Prior to the Day Ahead Energy Market

  1. Manual 14D Revisions (9:50-10:10)

PJM’s Michael Herman will present proposed revisions to Manual 14D: Generation Operational Requirements to codify FERC-approved requirements for resource owners seeking to deactivate their units (ER25-1501). If the resource intends to participate in capacity auctions, it must provide at least a year’s notice ahead of its desired deactivation, while those not participating would follow the must-offer exception process. The changes also would revise elements of the deactivation avoidable cost credit and increase the number of documents that would be posted publicly. (See “1st Read on Manual Revisions Detailing Generation Deactivation Process,” PJM OC Briefs: July 10, 2025.)

The committee will be asked to endorse the proposed manual revisions.

Issue Tracking: Enhancements to Deactivation Rules

Members Committee

Consent Agenda (11:05-11:10)

The committee will be asked to endorse as part of its consent agenda:

B. proposed revisions to the tariff and OA to allow demand response resources to offer regulation-only service at sites where energy may be injected onto the grid, so long as the arrangement is reflected in a net energy metering agreement with their electric distribution company. (See “PJM Reviews Proposal on Regulation Resources at NEM Sites,” PJM MRC/MC Briefs: Aug. 20, 2025.)

Issue Tracking: DER Regulation Market Only Participation at NEM Customer Sites

Endorsements (11:10-11:30)

  1. Resource Scheduling Prior to the Day-ahead Energy Market (11:10-11:30)

If endorsed by the MRC, D’Antonio will review the offer capping proposal for a same-day endorsement at the MC.

DOE Lays out Roadmap to Bring Nuclear Fusion to Market

A new Department of Energy strategy seeks to accelerate progress toward the long-sought, long-elusive goal of commercially viable nuclear fusion power.

The “Fusion Science and Technology Roadmap” seeks to coordinate and align public and private efforts and is part of the Trump administration’s broader energy dominance initiative.

The roadmap identifies research, materials and technology gaps that must be bridged before a fusion pilot plant can be built. It sets out three primary ways to accomplish this that boil down to build, innovate and grow: construction of critical infrastructure; innovation through advanced research, high-performance computing and artificial intelligence; and growth of a fusion ecosystem incorporating public-private partnerships, regional manufacturing hubs and workforce development.

The roadmap identifies six core challenge areas to be tracked with milestones and metrics: structural materials; plasma-facing components and plasma-material interactions; confinement approaches; the fuel cycle; blankets; and fusion plant engineering and system integration.

The goal is to build the public infrastructure needed to support the scale-up of private-sector fusion generation in the 2030s.

DOE formally announced the roadmap Oct. 16, after it was unveiled earlier in the week during events centered on fusion energy in D.C.

Energy Secretary Chris Wright spoke enthusiastically about fusion and the new roadmap at the Special Competitive Studies Project’s AI+ Fusion Summit in D.C. on Oct. 14.

“We’re going to get the fusion ball moving,” he said. “I think we will see more progress in the next five or 10 years, much more progress than in all of the history before on fusion. We’re finally going to see the reality of fusion come, first in the electricity grid, ultimately in industrial process heat to make things, and hopefully we can rapidly scale that up.”

The new roadmap is aligned closely with and builds off the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee Long-Range Plan, issued in 2020. The roadmap combines the earlier plan’s science drivers with a revamped Fusion Energy Science public program in DOE’s Office of Science in hopes of bringing to fruition what has been a very lengthy effort.

As skeptics like to point out, fusion research and development efforts have not yet lived up to the hope and hype surrounding them. A running joke is that the world has been 20 years away from perfecting commercial fusion for 50 years.

Wright addressed this at the Oct. 14 summit: “I worked on it 40 years ago. It isn’t that we’ve gotten nowhere in 40 years. It’s just a hard problem to replicate the sun on Earth. … We’ve made progress over the last 40 years, and we’re about there.”

What is different now, Wright said, is that artificial intelligence presents the need for large amounts of new electrical generation capacity, such as through fusion, and a tool to help develop fusion generation; fusion R&D is attracting private capital, which is less patient than public funding; and the U.S. wants to lead the world on fusion, rather than see the leadership role go to China, which is making massive investments to do just that.

“What China doesn’t have is the commercial sector we have,” Wright said. “We have billions of dollars of private money in different companies, backing different strategies, with different biases. We’re going to naturally get a broader choice.”

DOE’s network of national laboratories can complement these private-sector R&D efforts in key areas such as developing the materials needed to withstand the intense environment of a fusion reactor, he said.

Wright said one of the obstacles facing this initiative is budget cuts. While he agrees with President Donald Trump’s push to reduce spending, he said cuts should be targeted at subsidies for existing technologies, not directed broad stroke at everything in DOE’s budget.

“And I’ve had the political challenge to sell ‘not everything,’” he said. “In fact, there’s things we spend money on today that we should spend more on, not less on, even though we have a big budget deficit, and basic fundamental science is absolutely one of those.”

The U.S. needs to come closer to matching China’s investment of state funds in AI, Wright said: “My God, the upside of it is just — it’s hard to imagine. So we need to continue to bring confidence and private money into it, but we need to bring more government money into it.”

DOE in its roadmap notes the billions of dollars of private-sector investment pouring into fusion.

The Fusion Industry Association reported in July that the 53 fusion companies it surveyed had raised a combined $9.77 billion in funding, a fivefold increase over their total four years earlier. More than $2.5 billion of that was secured just in the past year, it added. The great majority of the capital has been private, with not even $800 million in public finding reported.

But 83% of companies said they still consider investment a major challenge, and their estimates of funds needed to bring their first pilot plants online were a combined $77 billion.

They remain optimistic, however: 84% expect to deliver power to the grid before 2040 and 53% by 2035.

Twenty-nine of the 53 companies surveyed for the association’s 2025 “Global Fusion Industry Report” are based in the U.S., and all three of the companies reporting more than $1 billion in funds raised are based here as well.

Commonwealth Fusion Systems of Massachusetts has claimed a leadership position in the pack, with nearly $3 billion raised as of late August, or approximately 30% of the total reported by private fusion companies worldwide. It has announced plans to build what it promotes as the world’s first grid-scale fusion plant in Virginia in partnership with Dominion Energy, and has announced power purchase agreements with Google and Eni that would account for more than half of the facility’s planned 400-MW nameplate capacity.

DOE previously supported Commonwealth’s work through funding streams including INFUSE, the Milestone-Based Fusion Development Program and ARPA-E.