GET THE APPFERC Rejects Data-Center Power-Cut Plan
FERC approved a registry for large loads on PJM's 67-million-person grid but rejected the operator's proposal to curtail some data centers during emergencies. The cost and reliability questions remain unsettled.
The federal regulator overseeing wholesale power markets has approved one part of PJM Interconnection's response to rapid data-center growth and rejected another. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission allowed PJM to build a registry of large electricity users, including data centers, but rejected the grid operator's proposal to create an emergency service that could temporarily disconnect some facilities when the system is short of power.
The registry is meant to give PJM, states, utilities and regulators a clearer picture of where large loads are being built and how quickly they will draw power. Reuters reports that the database can include a facility's provider, planned in-service date, ramp-up schedule, backup generation, fuel source and location. That addresses a real planning problem: announced data centers do not always arrive on schedule, while power plants and transmission projects can take years to permit and build.
PJM's rejected proposal went further. It would have applied to new data centers of at least 50 megawatts that did not bring enough new supply to cover their full demand. During a grid emergency, those customers could have faced temporary curtailment before ordinary firm-load customers. FERC said PJM had not adequately resolved jurisdictional issues or explained why data centers should be curtailed ahead of other large users. The Commission left the door open to a revised filing.
The stakes are large even without assuming that data centers are the only cause of higher power costs. PJM serves about 67 million people across 13 states and Washington, D.C. The operator forecasts data-center demand in its territory will nearly triple to about 29 gigawatts by 2030. Reuters reports that PJM capacity costs have risen by more than 1,000 percent since 2024 and that the latest auction produced a 6.8-gigawatt shortfall. Those are regional planning and wholesale-market figures, not a promise that every household bill will rise by the same amount, but they show why cost allocation and reliability rules matter to ordinary customers.
The deeper public-interest question is who absorbs the risk when private AI infrastructure arrives faster than the grid can add generation and transmission. FERC has separately told PJM to revise a backstop procurement plan so existing customers are not left paying for new large-load demand. That is documented regulatory action, not proof of a hidden network controlling the system. The unresolved issue is visible in the record: regulators, states, utilities, grid operators and technology companies are still negotiating who pays, who gets connected first and whose power can be reduced in an emergency. Households should expect those decisions to be made in public filings with clear cost estimates, not buried in technical proceedings after bills rise.