Nov. 18, 2025 — United States — The center of gravity in the data‑center power debate is shifting from novelty projects to industry rules. FERC has opened a formal inquiry into co‑locating large loads with generation—kicked off in February—and PJM is weighing a suite of market and interconnection reforms that would fast‑track “bring‑your‑own‑generation” (BYOG) and, in emergencies, curtail non‑BYOG data‑center load first to protect other customers. The stakes are outsized: PJM’s peak is forecast to rise 32 GW by 2030, with ~30 GW from data centers, a break from decades of flat demand. (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission)
At the federal level, FERC’s co‑location review zeroes in on rules for big loads physically adjacent to power plants—how they interconnect, pay for upgrades, and affect reliability. The scrutiny follows the Commission’s rejection of an amended interconnection deal to serve a hyperscale campus next to the Susquehanna nuclear station, a case that surfaced thorny questions on cost shifts and system impacts. (Reuters)
In the PJM footprint, the market design conversation has accelerated. A September kickoff outlined Non‑Capacity‑Backed Load (NCBL) and other options for large‑load additions; by October, PJM dropped NCBL and redirected the fast‑track toward forecast fixes, deposits, and expedited paths for projects that bring matched supply. The governors’/Data Center Coalition package now on the table would incentivize BYOG with expedited interconnection for qualifying resources and state‑led siting support. A parallel legislators–NRDC plan would go further: non‑BYOG load takes interruptible service and is curtailed first during scarcity. PJM’s Board is slated to decide this year, with any tariff changes headed to FERC. (insidelines.pjm.com)
Forecast noise is another fault line. The “phantom data‑center” problem—duplicative or speculative requests inflating load outlooks—has utilities and regulators tightening screens: higher deposits, 14‑year take‑or‑pay contracts, and up‑front payment requirements designed to flush unserious proposals and protect consumers from overbuild. Expect these controls to become standard gating items for load interconnection and service. (Financial Times)
What it means for U.S. utility‑scale renewables and storage: BYOG frameworks tilt the field toward co‑located solar, storage, and repowered thermal tied to hyperscale demand, with expedited studies for accredited capacity that matches data‑center ramps. Non‑BYOG paths will likely face curtail‑first risk, sharper cost responsibility, and stricter forecasting tests. In short: firm supply earns fast lanes; speculative load meets friction.
Sources
- FERC — Orders action on co‑location issues related to data centers (launching a review focused initially on PJM), Feb. 20, 2025. (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission)
- Reuters — U.S. regulators reject amended interconnect agreement for Amazon data center (Susquehanna case), Nov. 2, 2024. (Reuters)
- PJM Inside Lines — PJM kicks off initiative to balance reliability with large‑load growth (notes +32 GW peak growth, ~30 GW data centers), Sept. 17, 2025. (insidelines.pjm.com)
- RTO Insider — PJM drops Non‑Capacity‑Backed Load (updates the design path away from NCBL), Oct. 9, 2025. (RTO Insider)
- PJM (PDF) — Governors/Data Center Coalition/Exelon/PPL joint proposal—executive summary (voluntary/state‑sponsored BYOG, expedited interconnection and siting), Nov. 19, 2025.
- PJM (PDF) — Legislators + NRDC “Protecting Ratepayers” proposal—executive summary (interruptible service & curtail‑first for non‑BYOG load; BYOC paths), Nov. 17, 2025.
- PJM (PDF) — Large Load Additions—Initial proposal and alternatives (NCBL concept, early stage), Sept. 15, 2025. (pjm.com)
- Financial Times — ‘Phantom’ data centres muddy forecasts for U.S. power needs (deposits, long‑term contracts to filter speculative load), Nov. 2025. (Financial Times)
