A major data-center trip has put PJM’s rules—and FERC’s timing—under a very bright light. This is Power Grid Daily. We’re asking whether big computational loads are actually designed to stay online when the grid gets rough. And when they don’t, who carries the reliability exposure? Let’s start in PJM. From Inside Lines:
PJM is evaluating potential changes to interconnection reliability requirements, including existing and future ride-through standards and practices for Large Loads, specifically computational loads such as data centers and crypto-mining facilities, in the wake of a July 22 event that saw nearly 4,000 MW of data center load trip offline unexpectedly in Virginia. It was the largest such event in PJM history.
A mechanical failure on one 230-kV line in Northern Virginia, and 2,970 megawatts of load immediately transfers away? That is wildly larger than the initiating contingency. PJM says nearly 4,000 MW ultimately tripped on July 22—the largest large-load event in its history. Operators contained it, but the voltage and frequency swings are what matter now. A data center’s backup plant can protect its servers perfectly. But the grid needs the facility to ride through a defined voltage dip for a set interval before thousands of megawatts disappear at once. PJM is now bringing computational loads into that reliability conversation. Monday’s fight was about speculative-load costs. July 22 raises a separate interconnection obligation: once 3,800-plus megawatts are connected, their behavior during a fault has to be engineered into the system—not left to individual facilities’ transfer settings. Interactive News writes:
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on June 18 ordered six regional grid operators to explain or revise how they connect data centers, manufacturing facilities and other large electricity users to the power grid. The tailored show-cause orders, issued under Section 206 of the Federal Power Act, open a federal review of the rules used by each of the six regional transmission organizations and independent system operators under FERC jurisdiction.
FERC sent these Section 206 show-cause orders on June 18. Then, on July 22, 3,800 megawatts of computational load dropped in PJM's Dominion zone—the largest large-load trip PJM has recorded. FERC raised the issue before PJM supplied the clearest example. The PJM event gives this federal review a much sharper edge. FERC is asking all six jurisdictional grid operators whether their large-load connection rules are just and reasonable, and PJM's August 6 Operating Committee findings mean ride-through standards can’t be dismissed as paperwork. A data center's UPS keeping servers alive doesn’t mean the facility stays connected through a voltage disturbance. PJM is now evaluating how computational loads ride through—how much voltage they can tolerate, for how long, and how the equipment actually behaves. When those distinctions stay theoretical, nearly 4,000 megawatts can vanish at once. Monday's fights in Wisconsin and Nevada were about exposure if projected load never arrives. But there’s another exposure: load that’s already connected, counted in the system, and disappears instantly. For NV Energy's 2,025-megawatt request, ride-through obligations deserve the same scrutiny as the construction-cost allocation. If you’re getting something out of Power Grid Daily, please subscribe and leave us a review wherever you listen. It helps other people find the show and helps us keep bringing you the grid news that matters.
Links to every story are in the show notes, so you can follow up on anything that caught your attention. Thanks for listening. We’ll be back tomorrow. That’s Power Grid Daily for today. This is a Lantern Podcast.