FERC Load Orders Reshape AI Data Center Hookups

An AI data center gets interconnected quickly after the FERC large load orders of June 18, 2026 only by accepting curtailment or bringing its own power supply. PJM’s capacity auction on July 14, 2026 cleared 6,831 megawatts short of the reliability requirement, and PJM’s August 13 filing names the new data center without its own capacity as the first customer to be switched off in an emergency. Developers who read the June orders as a promise of faster connections are reading half of the record.

The June orders are real and they matter. In docket RM26-4, FERC began with a directive from the Secretary of Energy dated October 23, 2025, which proposed a national rule covering loads above 20 megawatts, studies in 60 days for curtailable loads, and full payment of network upgrades by the load. FERC then declined to write that rule. It issued six show cause orders instead, one for each regional grid operator, and told each to justify its tariff or reform it by August 17, 2026.

The headlines stopped there. The orders contain no connection date for anyone. They propose a definition of a large load, a site of 50 megawatts or more connecting above 69 kilovolts, and a study goal of 60 to 90 days. They ask for deposits that rise as a project gets closer to construction, a cost recovery agreement with financial security, and new transmission services for loads willing to limit their draw. The tariff filings that answer these orders are due from the operators on November 16, 2026, and FERC will rule after the comment period.

The mechanism explains why speed and firmness trade against each other. Transmission service today requires the customer to show resources, and resources need network upgrades that take years. Berkeley Lab counted 2,061 gigawatts of generation and storage in queues at the end of 2025, and only 13 percent of the capacity requested from 2000 to 2020 reached operation. A data center that waits for a firm path waits in the same line. The operators therefore built service that skips the line by giving something up.

SPP is furthest along. Its Conditional High Impact Large Load Service, accepted by FERC on June 5, 2026, gives a large load up to seven years of nonfirm transmission while firm service is built, and SPP may cut that service during constraints or emergencies. MISO proposed 90 day reviews for generation that serves a load at the same substation, capped at the size of the load, with no network upgrades beyond the substation. PJM proposed to put new loads without their own capacity first in the curtailment order starting June 1, 2027, with relief for loads that bring new capacity and commit it to the market for 10 delivery years.

The price tag is concrete. At the July auction cap of $325 per megawatt day, a 100 megawatt load faces about $11.9 million a year in capacity cost on gross demand. A new generator that wants PJM’s expedited track posts $500,000 plus $15,000 per megawatt, which comes to $4.25 million for 250 megawatts. These figures change who can afford to be early.

The unexpected implication is that the scarce asset is no longer the megawatt. It is verified flexibility. A load that can prove, through telemetry and a remote disconnect, that it will drop to a stated level within a stated number of minutes can buy service that a load without that proof cannot. SPP’s tariff already asks for real time telemetry, remote disconnect, and a ramp limit of 20 megawatts per minute. PJM would keep a registry of every large load, its backup generation, and its fuel. Duke University researchers estimated that 76 gigawatts of new load fits on the existing U.S. grid at 0.25 percent average annual curtailment, and 126 gigawatts at 1.0 percent, though that work did not model local congestion.

On a nuclear submarine, I learned that every electrical load has a place on a shed list and that the watch team knows the order before anything fails. Utilities are now asking data centers for the same list, in contract form: which megawatts are firm, which are curtailable, which move to backup generators, and how quickly. In my practice, the first document I ask a developer to produce is the study agreement, because the commercial terms of the lease, the power purchase agreement, and the financing all depend on it.

Three events will move the picture before year end. PJM asked for approval of its curtailment service by October 12, 2026. FERC suspended key elements of PJM’s separate backstop procurement on September 29, 2026, through February 28, 2027, over cost allocation and collateral. The six operators file on November 16. Contracts signed before those dates should state which tariff version governs, what happens to curtailment priority if the rule changes, and who posts the collateral.

Readers who finance or lease facilities to AI data centers should treat the curtailment clause as the primary term. The investor who models only the energized date and ignores the curtailment hours will misprice the asset, and the lender who sizes debt before seeing the study will carry completion risk that the tariff has pushed onto the borrower.

In my next piece, I will read the November 16 compliance filings and report which operator asks for the largest financial security from a data center, and in what form. Subscribe so that analysis reaches you the day the filings land.

Interested in analysis about the intersection of tech, policy and the law? Check out my Substack channel. https://theinnovationattorney.substack.com/

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit theinnovationattorney.substack.com/subscribe