Author: Jon Gordon Published: 6/5/2026 Advance Energy
| A NEWSLETTER FROM ADVANCED ENERGY UNITEDJune 5, 2026 |
 Jon Gordon Senior Director We have a jam-packed PJM Bulletin this month reflecting the frenetic pace of critical activity in and around PJM. The unprecedented levels of external policy engagement at PJM continue to accelerate, this time in the form of scorching criticisms of PJM directly in front of the PJM Board, Leadership, and Stakeholders at the May 11 PJM Annual Meeting by Maryland Governor Wes Moore and FERC Chair Laura Swett (see full Annual Meeting story below). This only adds to the pressure already on PJM and its newly appointed CEO (see Governance & Leadership Updates below) as they seek to create entirely new structures and rules in hopes of insulating ratepayers from costs associated with unprecedented data center load growth that threatens system reliability (see Reliability Backstop Procurement story below). While all this is happening, PJM is simultaneously pursuing a comprehensive redesign of wholesale power markets that even PJM admits are currently broken (see the full holistic study story below). The Annual Meeting featured robust debate on whether PJM can deliver on both reliability and affordability, with most participants strongly agreeing that we need both, while other voices insisted that having both is not possible—at least for the time being. Speaking to this moment of urgency in solving these many existential problems in the PJM power markets that everyone in the region relies upon, CEO Mills told the audience at the annual meeting, “We are out of time.” We’re holding a special virtual webinar event, PJM Under Pressure: Will Proposed Reforms Meet the Moment?, on June 12 at 12 p.m. ET, to discuss many of these issues, featuring an industry roundtable and a presentation from Synapse Energy Economics. More details later in the newsletter. The event is free, and you can register here. |
 |
| PJM Annual Meeting Puts Reliability, Affordability, and Governance Under the MicroscopeMaryland Governor Wes Moore Pushes PJM to Move Faster, Defends State Efforts to Drive Investment in New ResourcesAn eventful PJM Annual Meeting in Baltimore on May 11-12 was bookended by two bombshell guest speaker presentations hammering PJM for failing to act more quickly to ensure reliability and affordability. Maryland Governor Wes Moore delivered the opening speech, stating: “There’s no clear plan by PJM to address both affordability and reliability.” PJM’s leadership, Moore said, isn’t acting with the urgency that state leaders expect as electricity demand is projected to race ahead of supply before the end of the decade. “The cost of inaction is increasing costs for people, so let’s move in partnership and let’s move now.” Moore pointed to the recent PJM capacity auctions as a sign of PJM’s shortcomings: “That’s not a market signal; that’s a system that isn’t working.” He pushed back on the idea that the electricity supply has been worsened by state climate policy pushing fossil fuel-fired plants to retire. That argument, he said, is “incomplete at best, and an unproductive excuse at worst… It wasn’t the states that drove those retirements. New, cheaper, cleaner technologies out-competed aging coal and gas plants,” Moore said, adding that was why states like Maryland have so aggressively supported new resources like solar and battery storage. “State policy did not design the interconnection queue. It wasn’t Maryland that green-lit billions in transmission investments to serve the needs of other states. That wasn’t Maryland,” he said. “That was PJM, but the consequences of those decisions are showing up monthly on Marylanders’ bills.” Moore went on to outline three specific actions PJM must take to address the region’s energy affordability crisis:Deliver the Reliability Backstop Procurement on schedule: PJM must hold its auction in September and provide 15-year price certainty to ensure the cost of new energy resources is allocated to those driving the need.Ensure data centers pay their own way: PJM must require the companies fueling the surge in electricity demand to bear the costs of grid infrastructure, rather than passing the burden to households and small businesses. Clear the interconnection queue: PJM must move faster to approve new, affordable energy resources, particularly storage, rather than relitigating the technology mix inside the queue.FERC Chair Swett Blasts PJM and Announces FERC PJM Governance Tech ConferenceThe second day of the annual meeting closed with a presentation from FERC Chairman Laura Swett, who told the gathered PJM Board, leadership team, and stakeholders that PJM may be “too big to function” and has an “unacceptable” governance structure. As a result, she concluded, PJM faces “a serious legitimacy crisis” as confidence in its decision-making has “completely eroded.” The crisis comes as PJM needs to add generation to its system as soon as possible to serve data centers, according to Swett. “This is not a time for weak leadership or to be crippled by fear — this is a time for difficult, history-making decisions that are not for the faint of heart, decisions that may leave many unhappy, decisions that may make or break part of a nation. ” The 13 states in PJM and the District of Columbia have “fundamentally different regulatory structures, resource portfolios and politics,” Swett said. Despite many challenges, FERC expects PJM to run power markets that are “fair and efficient … and to maintain reliability through extreme weather, shifting fuel mixes and rapid technological change,” Swett said. “If this can’t be landed given PJM’s huge and diverse footprint, perhaps it simply has grown too big to function.” Further, PJM’s governance process appears flawed, according to Swett. “The current stakeholder process is slow where it must be fast, opaque where it must be transparent, and vulnerable to vetoes and agenda control exactly when the region needs immediate action,” Swett said. “The status quo is unacceptable and has been for some time.” Saying she has a “great appetite for aggression when the country’s future hangs in the balance,” Swett said FERC would hold a conference July 23 to identify flaws in PJM’s governance process and solutions for fixing them. “It will be a work session to build a record eyed toward actionable change,” Swett said. (PJM discussion of the FERC Governance workshop). FERC has not yet announced a deadline for self-nominations for parties interested in speaking at the tech conference; more information will be posted to FERC Docket No. AD26-7. PJM’s Perspective: A Market in Transition—And Out of Time Just 10 days after moving from interim to permanent PJM President and CEO, David Mills outlined the key elements of his future vision in his opening remarks at the Annual Meeting (see full story of David Mills’ CEO appointment below). “The state of PJM is one of transition – complex and demanding, but full of promise.” PJM is at a pivotal moment, Mills said, noting that the entire energy landscape is undergoing one of the most significant transformations in history and that, for the first time in decades, the regional transmission organization (RTO) finds itself managing scarcity instead of surplus. Mills said his predecessor, Manu Asthana, used to say: “We have time, but not much” – Mills said: “We are out of time.” Adam Keech, PJM Senior Vice President – Market Services, presented remarks on the recently released PJM paper, Powering Reliability Through Market Design, which seeks to frame the issues to be addressed (see full story below on the holistic market redesign paper): “How we move forward is critical. The technical details matter. What matters equally is getting buy-in on the solution,” Keech said. He outlined steps ahead to begin that stakeholder collaboration for holistic market design, beginning with a presentation at the Markets and Reliability Committee on May 20, stakeholder workshops this summer, and a formal stakeholder process starting in the fall.PJM CEO Mills personally moderated two stakeholder panel discussions at the Annual Meeting in regard to the pressing demands of large load growth, maintaining affordability, and adjusting grid operations, markets, and system planning to maintain reliability. Panelists struggled to identify solutions to deliver both near-term affordability and reliability, and expressed concerns around state and federal policy interventions (i.e., market caps and generation interventions that distort markets and create regulatory uncertainty that could chill future infrastructure investment in PJM) |
| PJM Updates & Policy Developments |
| PJM Kicks Off a Holistic Markets Review PJM leadership has recently begun to acknowledge that current capacity price volatility – while economically rational – is eroding the public-private compact that allows the market to function, and that the basic assumptions of the capacity market must be reexamined in a resource-constrained world. PJM indicated early this year that they would be initiating a holistic market redesign process that would examine not only the capacity market, but the energy and ancillary services markets as well. PJM kicked this process off on May 6 with the publication of Powering Reliability Through Market Design. The report describes the changed investment climate and choices to be made about shared reliability, consumer protections, and the role of markets, and assesses the current industry landscape of high prices, burgeoning electricity demand, and reluctant investors, and catalogues the foundational decisions that will be required of industry and government to meet those challenges for the long term. In a foreword to the paper, PJM President and CEO David Mills wrote, “The Board asked PJM to examine whether the foundational assumptions of the market remain valid – and if not, what a valid set of assumptions would require. The paper that follows is an honest attempt at that examination. ”The paper first explains where we are and how we got here: The current three-year forward capacity market construct, while effective at managing the coal-to-gas transition at a time when a natural gas combined cycle plant could reasonably be completed within that timeframe, is no longer functioning as intended. The facts on the ground in PJM have fundamentally changed, with the region now facing 5–7-year construction timelines, rapidly accelerating demand forecasts, and growing supply scarcity and transmission constraints.Building new generation is more expensive and riskier than it used to be; capital costs have risen sharply, construction timelines have more than doubled, and state and federal policy has whipsawed. Many investors now require long-term revenue certainty before committing capital to new projects to offset the increased risks.That leaves PJM’s capacity market in a credibility trap: high prices designed to signal the need for investment put pressure on consumers who are unprotected from market volatility; this triggers government intervention to protect consumers, which undermines the credibility of those same prices and fails to incentivize new investment.PJM’s paper falls short of making recommendations and notes that many of the choices required must be made by others outside of PJM, including state officials, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, consumers and the advocates who represent them. Mills underscored the importance of a transparent discussion of trade-offs in his letter, stating: “Wholesale electricity markets are extraordinary institutions, and their most essential infrastructure is not a price curve or a performance obligation – it is legitimacy. Generators, utilities, investors, and consumers must all believe, at a basic level, that the rules are fair, stable, and the product of a process they recognize as credible.” PJM maintains that markets remain the best opportunity to address this challenge cost-effectively, and the paper outlines three general frameworks (not necessarily mutually exclusive) to start the conversation:Path A, which PJM calls “Stabilized Markets,” would keep the basic capacity market, but utilities and suppliers would be required to lock in more capacity ahead of time through longer-term commitments.Path B is “Differential Reliability.” PJM would amend its goal of ensuring every customer receives the same electricity reliability guarantees. Instead, customers or states that pay for less new supply may face more curtailment. Other electricity customers or regions get stronger protections.NOTE: This approach was panned by virtually all stakeholders at the PJM Annual Meeting. PJM is currently pursuing a targeted version of differential reliability for new large loads via the Connect and Manage proposal, discussed below.Path C is “Energy Market Transition.” This would favor real-time energy and ancillary services markets. The plan would price power and flexibility closer to when they are actually needed while maintaining some long-term energy contracts to keep customers from being exposed to wild price swings or reliability gaps.PJM states that the paper will serve as the foundation for discussion that will lead to PJM and stakeholders working toward permanent proposals. Next steps include stakeholder collaboration for holistic market design, beginning with a presentation at the Markets and Reliability Committee on May 20, stakeholder workshops this summer, and a formal stakeholder process starting in the fall. PJM Reliability Backstop ProcurementOn April 8, the PJM Board of Managers issued a letter initiating a Critical Issue Fast Path (CIFP) to engage stakeholders in the development of a Reliability Backstop Procurement proposal. The primary intent of the procurement is to shield ratepayers from the cost impacts of rapid demand growth associated with data centers. Additional background on the stakeholder engagement and education on this issue prior to the CIFP can be found on PJM’s Reliability Backstop Procurement Workshop page. On April 10, PJM issued a draft plan paper indicating PJM would commence the reliability backstop process with a phase of time to allow for facilitated bilateral contracting directly between supply and load, to be followed by a central procurement process, which would seek to secure any remaining shortfall. The initial PJM plan featuring the bilateral contracting period received wide support from stakeholders when presented by PJM in the initial workshop meeting on April 16. Initial plan summary:Bilateral Contracts: PJM and Charles River Associates (CRA) will act as confidential intermediaries to provide match-making services for buyers (Load) and sellers (New Generation). Parties would then set terms and conditions and contract out of PJM’s purview (no pro forma agreements, no specific PJM requirements). Parties would NOT be required to utilize PJM/CRA as intermediaries and could consummate bilateral transactions on their own. Target time frame: bilateral period September 2026 through March 2027PJM does not have direct experience facilitating bilateral contracts. PJM was guided that the 6-month period was necessary to allow full negotiation and contract execution. PJM is seeking additional feedback from members on the proposed timeframeCentral Procurement: Any residual target MW not met during the bilateral phase will move to a PJM-administered central procurement.Target time frame: opens March 2027 (4–6-month process)PJM’s Central Procurement Plan timeline is now in flux.During the May 4-5 Reliability Backstop Procurement CIFP meetings, PJM made a surprise announcement that it is considering moving the proposed Central Procurement timeline back to September 2026 following concern about the March 2027 timeline from the White House Energy Dominance Council and other governmental officials. Stakeholders have generally supported PJM’s proposal to delay the central procurement, as this plan allows time for more efficient bilateral contracting to occur after the details of the central procurement and connect-and-manage (discussed below) are ironed out. It also allows time for proposed generation and storage projects to gain more certainty around their interconnection costs before committing to a central procurement. Stakeholders weigh in on RBP design. Prior to PJM’s surprise pivot, stakeholders had put forward ten alternate proposals in response to the original RBP proposal; while the proposal has shifted, many of the concerns and recommendations remain relevant. A key concern with PJM’s original plan was the eligibility of demand response (DR) and distributed energy resources (DERs), which were limited to “new” resources, which can be challenging to define. Also, DR/DER providers are concerned that the proposal does not create parity between DR/DER and other types of “Bring Your Own New Capacity” (BYONC), which will likely result in DR/DERs being a less attractive option for large loads. Stakeholder proposal summaries:Old Dominion Electric Cooperative: Argues that procurement responsibility should move from EDCs to the large loads directly. Long Duration Energy Storage Council: Extend the COD date requirements so that long-duration energy storage can participate.Base Power: Reliability Backstop design should allow for or encourage peak shaving.Joint Consumer Advocates: Prefers bilateral contracting and direct demand-side participation. Suggests specific changes to the PJM plan, including market power rules, increased penalty for supply that does not materialize, and locational requirements.American Municipal Power: Leverage existing Fixed Resource Requirement (FRR) rules to require new large loads to plan for their own load growth and present PJM with matched capacity.Shell Energy: Suggests using the 2027 load forecast for the procurement target and decrementing the procurement target by the amount of new incremental capacity in recent BRAs. When procurement resources are incorporated in the BRA, they should bid at the administrative price floor rather than at $0 price takers.Competitive Power Ventures: Advocates for a September 2026 procurement and elimination of the bilateral period, extension of the COD requirement to 2033, and relaxation of collateral requirements.REV Renewables, LS Power, and Middle River Power: Reduce collateral requirements for generators, expand supply eligibility, and mitigate ELCC risk in the Central Procurement for generation over the term horizon to increase financeability.Voltus: Expand eligibility for demand response and mitigate ELCC risk over the term horizon for the Central Procurement.MN8: Supports bilateral phase with central procurement in the March 2027 timeframe. Suggests modifications to PJM proposal, including allowing buyer to express willingness to pay, mechanisms to reduce ELCC change risk to supply offers, and collateral requirements. The RBP CIFP workplan was issued on May 5. The next Critical Issue Fast Path – Reliability Backstop Procurement meeting was held on May 27 from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. The meeting was immediately followed by a special Member’s Committee meeting for initial indicative stakeholder voting on proposals. PJM planned to file the RBP proposal with FERC in June. Connect and Manage Senior Task ForceThe Connect and Manage Senior Task Force (CAMSTF) is addressing a “connect-and-manage” framework for new large loads to manage the reliability challenges during the transition period in which new large load additions are outpacing the additions of new capacity in the PJM system. This effort is closely related to, and is a critical underpinning for, the Reliability Backstop Procurement (RBP) process discussed above, as supply from the procurement will likely not be available in time to fully meet anticipated data center load demand. The framework would apply specifically to the electric distribution companies (EDCs) or Transmission Owners (TOs) where these certain loads are not linked with qualifying Bring Your Own New Generation (BYONG), or other supply resource arrangements to be defined, during energy shortages for delivery years where there is a shortage of available capacity to satisfy the Installed Reserve Margin. The CAMSTF will also explore customer flexibility solutions that would allow certain large-load customers to connect to the grid prior to completion of necessary transmission upgrades. As discussed in the PJM Board’s January 16, 2026, Decisional Letter on the Critical Issue Fast Path – Large Load Additions, the PJM Board of Managers has directed PJM to implement a “connect-and-manage” framework for new large load additions that do not Bring Your Own New Generation (BYONG) with curtailment expected to occur prior to the deployment of pre-emergency Demand Response, subject to stakeholder development of the appropriate operational framework. Additional resources:CAMSTF initial presentationCAMSTF timeline and workplanConnect and Manage – Problem StatementConnect and Manage – Issue Charge PJM Combines Reliability Backstop Procurement and Connect & Manage Into a Single CIFPIn a May 19 Letter to Stakeholders, PJM announced its intent to combine Critical Issue Fast Path (CIFP) for the Reliability Backstop Procurement (RBP) and Connect and Manage (C&M) Senior Task Force effort, stating “it has become clear that the Backstop and C&M are too substantively linked to continue to be discussed in separate stakeholder processes.” Perhaps more noteworthy, in a last-minute change, likely driven by federal and state pressure, the Board letter announced it would return to a planned September RBP as originally requested by the White House Energy Dominance Council and PJM Governors, rather than the PJM proposed April 2027 RBP (new plan discussed below) The reversal was a surprise as stakeholders were generally supportive of PJM’s earlier proposal to conduct the RBP in April 2027 after a 6-month bilateral contracting period. PJM also adjusted the procurement amount for the September 2026 RBP to the amount of shortfall observed in the upcoming July ’28/’29 Base Residual Auction (BRA) rather than the original target to procure 15 GW through the backstop. The reduction in the procurement target is a way for PJM to mitigate the risk of over-procurement for 15-year contracts and increase the likelihood that the RBP is successful in attracting sufficient capacity to meet the Energy Dominance Council and Governors’ expectations. The decision also lowers the bar for success and de-risks the market in terms of exposure to over-procurement. PJM will still open a facilitated bilateral matchmaking program that will start in June, though the mechanics of how the bilateral contracts interact with the procurement remain murky even at this late stage. PJM has very little time to iron out the many issues associated with this significant new and unprecedented procurement process. The remaining expedited schedule is as follows:June 10–11 – Stage 3 meetings for stakeholders to develop alternative proposalsJune 30 – Stage 4 and Special MC meeting for indicative stakeholder vote on proposalsJuly: PJM’s Board will make a final decision and file with FERC. State Engagement Spotlight: PJM Notifies States of Actions Required by States to Protect Consumers from Data Center CostsOn May 5, PJM sent a letter to each of the PJM governors requesting that they immediately start work on their commitment to allocating costs to data centers. PJM intended to notify the states that after PJM runs the Backstop procurement, if states have not established frameworks to allocate costs to new data center loads appropriately, it is unclear which customers would bear those costs. Absent appropriate safeguards, these costs may be allocated to other consumers in the states, including residential consumers. PJM went on to state, “We reiterate our ask here as PJM does not have the authority to allocate costs directly to retail customers.” William and Mary College – PJM Future of Energy ConferenceOn May 20, former FERC Chair Mark Christie, who is now the leader of the Center for Energy Law & Policy at the College of William & Mary law school, hosted the inaugural Future of Energy conference focused on the challenges facing PJM. The conference highlighted the challenges PJM faces in addressing rapid load growth driven by data centers in a wholesale market short on supply, with lengthy timelines for new generation construction. PJM’s COO Stu Bressler stated, “I have to deal with what I am dealt, … If you’re a retail regulator, do you want PJM to tell the wires companies — the transmission owners, the EDCs — what customers they are or are not allowed to interconnect? The way in which the states deal with that is going to have implications for what I do as the reliability entity for the region. And if more demand comes on the system as a result of the way the states deal with this than I can serve at any given point in time, I have no choice. I have to manage that.” There were also debates about PJM Governance, the role of the states, and the potential for states to leave PJM. Former FERC Chair Richard Glick stated: “There’s an existential threat to RTOs in general, and PJM more specifically, right now. … PJM and all the RTOs produce an enormous amount of benefits. If we didn’t have the kind of coordination and efficiency that comes with regional operations and regional dispatch and regional transmission planning, when it occurs, the consumer costs would be much higher, and reliability problems would be much more of a concern…” Glick also commented on governance reform, acknowledging that “it’s very tough to come up with a stakeholder proposal because of the weighting of different groups” but ultimately concluding that governance is a distraction and that “[t]here are changes to the markets that can be made that I’d rather have people focus on than governance.” |
| Governance & Leadership UpdatesPJM Elevates David Mills to President and CEOPJM has named Board of Managers Chair David Mills to serve as president and CEO after he served as the chief executive on an interim basis for about four months. The decision, announced May 1, was effective on the same day. As part of the hire, Mills will step down as chair and a voting member of the board, though he will remain a non-voting member by virtue of being CEO. “We have selected David to lead PJM into the future, build on the progress we are making to address current challenges, and continue the organization’s evolution,” Manager Matt Nelson, who headed the CEO search committee and is chair of the board’s Human Resources Committee, said in the announcement. Mills was tapped as interim CEO in January after former CEO Manu Asthana stepped down from the position. In his tenure, he has prioritized increasing communications between board members and stakeholders, including adding a board discussion standing item to the monthly Members Committee meetings. Recent topics included external influence on the stakeholder process and how PJM should prioritize the issues before it. During the Members’ Committee meeting on March 25, Mills said the vote against re-electing two board members at the 2025 PJM Annual Meeting demonstrated to him that unilateral board action is not the way forward. (See “Board of Managers Discusses Streamlining Stakeholder Process,” PJM Markets and Reliability Committee/Members Committee (MRC/MC) Briefs: March 25, 2026.) Mills first joined the Board of Managers in 2021 and was elected as chair in May 2025 following the ouster of Mark Takahashi at the Annual Meeting. He served as chief strategy officer and senior vice president of policy and energy supply at Puget Sound Energy before going to PJM. Mills has served on PJM’s Board since 2021, holding multiple leadership roles, including chairing the Markets Committee, the primary venue for vetting and approving proposed changes to wholesale market structures. He was elected Board chair in mid-2025 before stepping down to serve as interim president and CEO. Mills is widely viewed as knowledgeable and accessible, and he has been one of the more active board members in stakeholder-facing discussions. Given his background and tenure at PJM to date, he is clearly open to reform but unlikely to be a visionary or change agent at PJM. PJM Board Nominees Elected by StakeholdersAt the May 11 Annual Meeting, PJM stakeholders elected Larry Bekkedahl and Charles Berardesco to serve three-year terms on the PJM Board of Managers. Margaret Loebl was also reelected to serve an additional three-year term on the board. Bekkedahl recently retired as senior vice president of strategy and advanced delivery for Portland General Electric, and Berardesco is an attorney who held several roles at the North American Electric Reliability Corporation. Additionally, acting Board Chair Paula Conboy was formally elected Board Chair. |
| FERC Filings & DecisionsThe Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is an important independent agency that regulates interstate transmission of electricity, natural gas, and oil. As the agency that oversees regional transmission organizations such as PJM, it is important to know what FERC is working on and how this may impact consumers in your state. The following FERC filings and decisions are worth tracking this month.FERC Approves PJM Capacity Market Price CapsPJM filed its proposal at FERC to extend the capacity market price collar on February 27, and FERC subsequently approved the extension on April 28, 2026. In its order approving the collar extension, the FERC acknowledged that its previous order approving the price collar was time-limited through the 2027/2028 delivery year. However, FERC found that a second time-limited approval is warranted “to mitigate price volatility in the market and provide stable market outcomes in the near-term as PJM considers a comprehensive set of reforms and fundamental market design changes to address resource adequacy challenges and better reflect the needs of investors and customers.” FERC rejected intervenor arguments that the proposed price cap and floor are too low or too high and repeatedly stressed that the price collar is time-limited to allow for price certainty while PJM and stakeholders work on comprehensive market reforms. Commissioner Rosner published a separate concurring opinion, noting that his approval is grounded in PJM’s plans to hold a Reliability Backstop Auction and pursue additional market reforms.The next major PJM capacity auction (Base Residual Auction) for the 2028/2029 Delivery Year is scheduled to take place in May 2026. This auction is part of PJM’s effort to return to its standard three-year-forward planning cycle following recent delays and rescheduling, with the auction window for the 2027/28 year occurring in December 2025. Key upcoming auctions (which will reflect the approved caps) include:2028/2029 Base Residual Auction: May 2026The 2028/2029 Delivery Year (DY) collar will be $325/MW-day and $175/MW-day2029/2030 Base Residual Auction: December 2026 PJM Transmission Owners Release Draft FERC Order 1920 Cost Allocation Compliance PlanAs part of FERC Order 1920 compliance, PJM transmission owners (TOs) are required to file a cost allocation plan with FERC. 1920 also required PJM states through their PJM Area Relevant State Entities Committee (PARSEC), which falls under the Organization of PJM States Inc (OPSI), to file a cost allocation plan. PARSEC, along with PJM TOs, jointly requested compliance extensions from FERC to ensure that the development of localized cost allocation methodologies can be properly aligned with PJM’s long-term planning studies. A deadline extension was approved for June 12 to file negotiated cost-allocation methodologies with FERC. PARSEC has developed a plan, and now the TOs have drafted their own cost allocation language. This is what the TOs plan to file as their principal proposal for complying with Order 1920. It’s important to note that the TO proposal will not include the opt-out provision found in the PARSEC compliance plan – the opt-out provision is concerning as it has the potential to gut the intention of FERC Order 1920, which is to encourage beneficial regional transmission with shared benefits. If States can opt out for no cause, it will be hard to move forward with optimized multi-value transmission projects as was FERC’s intent in 1920. The TO’s have a self-interest in a robust transmission buildout and will advance their plan to FERC that does not contain an opt-out provision. The TOs will attach the PARSEC proposal as an alternative within their FERC filing. Comments on the TO filing are due May 27, to the TOs via email. Their filing is due at FERC on June 12. Changes to Generation Self Scheduling Market Rules (ER26-2061-000)On April 7, PJM submitted tariff revisions to specify reserve must-offer rules for Market Sellers of self-scheduled resources that purchase gas in advance of their Day-Ahead Energy Market commitment during a Cold Weather Alert. The revisions specify that such resources satisfy the must-offer requirement when the installed capacity equivalent of the committed Accredited Unforced Capacity (UCAP) value equals their self-scheduled megawatts combined plus additional megawatts offered for reserves. PJM requests an effective date of June 7, 2026. Amendments to the EIT (ER26-1563-001)On April 10, PJM filed a motion and amendment with FERC responding to protests and comments regarding PJM’s proposed Expedited Interconnection Track (EIT). The amendments seek to address concerns while keeping the EIT proposal. The EIT addresses a capacity shortfall for the 2027/28 delivery year by creating a limited and temporary process to expedite Generator Interconnection Agreements. PJM proposes to accommodate variances in siting laws with modified definitions and requirements. These modifications ensure that the EIT can accommodate the diverse regulatory frameworks across PJM’s multi-state region while maintaining the expedited timeline necessary to address the capacity shortfall. PJM requests Commission acceptance of the EIT as amended, effective July 31, 2026, with a decision by June 9, 2026. Order 2023 Second Compliance Filing (ER24-20450-004)On April 16, FERC issued an order accepting in part and rejecting in part PJM’s second compliance filing for Order Nos. 2023 and 2023-A. The Commission accepted PJM’s cluster study cost allocation, queue scope tool, elimination of “reasonable efforts” language, study delay penalties, scoping meeting provisions, surety bonds acceptance as security, and various independent entity variations. The Commission rejected various definitions, payment structures, and study extensions. PJM has 60 days, June 15, 2026, to make the required changes outlined in the order. The accepted provisions become effective on the start date of PJM’s next Cycle, which PJM must file as the actual effective date 60-120 days before. The order reflects ongoing efforts to standardize and improve generator interconnection processes while accommodating regional variations where justified. Order on PJM’s Compliance with December 2025 Order on Show Cause Proceeding (ER26-1088-000)On April 16, FERC issued an order partially accepting and partially rejecting PJM’s compliance filing in response to the December 2025 Show Cause Order. The Commission accepts PJM’s proposed revisions clarifying procedures for new Co-Located Load generating facilities, including: the allowance of interconnection requests, full generating capability, use of existing acceleration procedures, allowing Provisional Interconnection Service requests, and enabling Surplus Interconnection Service requests. The Commission rejected substitutions of definitions and changes to Behind the Meter Generation application requirements and found that PJM failed to justify deviations from the original December Order. PJM is directed to revise and remove rejected provisions within 30 days, by May 16, 2026. PJM’s Reply to Replies in the Show Cause Proceeding (EL25-49-000)On April 24, PJM filed a reply to comments following PJM’s initial brief in the paper hearing established by FERC’s Show Cause Order. PJM defends the proposed framework to address reliability challenges because of rapid data center expansion. PJM did, following stakeholder feedback, revise discretionary enforcement processes to be based on fault rather than strict liability. The brief makes other revisions to incorporate transmission owner feedback on technical requirements, notification processes, and coordination responsibilities. PJM maintains that June 1, 2029, is the earliest feasible effective date because of capacity market requirements and necessary software updates. Comments on PJM’s reply were filed on May 15, 2026. Load Management Enhancements (ER26-2319)On April 27, PJM filed tariff revisions to enhance the performance of Demand Resources (DR) and Price Responsive Demand (PRD) during events that do not trigger a Performance Assessment Interval (PAI). These revisions will create a new event category, Non-PAI Events, to define when DR is dispatched or when PRD is required, but a PAI is not in effect. Also included in the plan are “Non-Curtailment Charges” specifically for Load Response resources that fail to meet their capacity commitment during Non-PAI Events. PJM requests an effective date of June 27, 2026, to provide clarity before the Base Residual Auction for the 2028/2029 Delivery year, scheduled to commence on June 30, 2026. Comments were due May 18, 2026. |
| Upcoming Events & Engagement OpportunitiesPJM Under Pressure: Will Proposed Reforms Meet the Moment?Advanced Energy United | June 12 at 12 pm ET / 9 am PT All eyes are on the grid operator, PJM Interconnection, as it readies an ambitious plan to avert a reliability crisis and maintain affordability in the face of unprecedented demand growth. PJM is in the process of speeding through several significant reforms to its policies and markets, recently warning its stakeholders that it and the roughly 65 million Americans it serves are “on a collision course of time versus supply shortfall.” Is PJM taking the right steps to ensure reliability and affordability for the 13 states it serves? In this special virtual event, industry experts will assess whether PJM’s proposals will meet the moment, discussing what’s at stake and what steps they want to see to ensure their businesses can manage the changes. Preceding the roundtable will be a presentation from Synapse Energy Economics about a recent analysis that lays out what resource mix would provide the most reliability and affordability benefits for PJM customers. Panelists:Mona Tierney-Lloyd, Enel North America Head of Regulatory and Institutional AffairsJoe Macklin, Calibrant Energy Director, Regulatory Strategy & Market DevelopmentAdam Stern, Clearway Energy Group Director of Market PolicyBrian George, Google Senior Lead, U.S. Energy MarketsJon Gordon, Advanced Energy United Senior DirectorPatrick Knight, Synapse Energy Economics Vice PresidentModerator:Caitlin Marquis, Advanced Energy United Managing Director Mid-Atlantic Conference of Regulatory Utilities Commissioners (MACRUC) — 2026 Annual Education Conference Hilton Columbus Downtown, Columbus, Ohio | June 15-18, 2026Regional forum for utility commissioners and stakeholders to discuss shared regulatory and infrastructure challenges. Northwestern Electricity Dialogue — Load Generation and Transmission: Planning in a Time of Uncertainty Chicago, IL | June 29-30, 2026A cross-regional forum exploring long-term electricity system planning, governance, and coordination. While outside the PJM footprint, discussions often inform national transmission and planning debates. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission — Technical Conference on Increasing Market and Planning Efficiency Washington, DC / Virtual | July 7-8, 2026As part of its 2026 conference schedule, FERC will host its Increasing Market and Planning Efficiency through Improved Software Technical Conference on July 7–8, 2026 (Docket No. AD25-7-000), focused on improving real-time and day-ahead market and planning efficiency through enhanced software and modeling tools. The conference will include discussions on advanced computational methods, system optimization, and the role of emerging technologies—including Grid-Enhancing Technologies (GETs) and Advanced Transmission Technologies (ATTs)—in improving system performance and operational efficiency. The event will be held in a hybrid format in Washington, DC, and online. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission — Technical Conference on PJM Governance and Stakeholder Reforms Washington, DC / Virtual | July 23, 2026FERC will convene a Chairman- and Commissioner-led technical conference on PJM governance and stakeholder reforms in Docket No. AD26-7-000. The conference will focus on PJM’s governance structure and stakeholder process, with particular attention to identifying actionable reforms that could improve PJM’s ability to address system needs in a timely and efficient manner. The conference follows heightened scrutiny of PJM’s governance and decision-making processes as the region faces rapid load growth, affordability concerns, and reliability challenges. The event will be open to the public, webcast, and transcribed. Organization of PJM States, Inc. (OPSI) — Annual MeetingTraverse City, Michigan | October 19-22, 2026Convenes PJM state commissions and consumer advocates to coordinate on transmission planning, cost allocation, and market reforms. |
| PJM in the News |
 |