The data-center boom has made it into the tariff. Now regulators have to decide how much accountability comes with that—and how much is just a pricier forecast. This is Power Grid Daily. ERCOT is reshuffling the queue, PJM is arguing over who governs it, and Midwest utilities are keeping old plants online for demand that still needs to prove itself. RTO Insider, with Tom Kleckner:
ERCOT says it will need to file good-cause exceptions with the Public Utility Commission to respond to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s request that the organizations conduct a “comprehensive” verification and audit of all data centers before they can be energized. The grid operator’s general counsel, Chad Seely, told the commissioners during a special open meeting Aug. 14 that staff is moving the verification process — originally intended to be conducted in parallel with the Batch Zero interconnection study — to the “front of the line.”
ERCOT’s Batch Zero has 325 large-load projects seeking 205 gigawatts. Verification is now moving from a parallel track to the gate before studies begin, under a good-cause exception after Abbott’s August 3 halt. Sixty-five gigawatts might qualify as base load, but first ERCOT has to establish that these are real projects with a real path to energization. Sensible screen. It still doesn’t conjure a transformer or an open substation bay. And the process matters. Chad Seely is asking the PUC to reshuffle approved Batch Zero deadlines so unclassified projects can still show up in the August and November stability assessments. Planners are being asked to count load before the audit decides what survives. Right — moving verification forward may clear some fantasy requests out of the queue. But every serious project still inherits the same equipment calendar, so nobody should read this exception as a commercial-operation-date shortcut. When PJM’s capacity auction clears at $325 per megawatt-day, what is it actually buying? And why should a customer with no connection to a data center care about a price for power years before it’s used? It buys commitments from power resources to be available during the 2028/2029 delivery year. It does not buy the electricity those resources will generate hour by hour. Capacity is its own forward-looking market: resources are paid to commit to availability when the grid needs them, while energy is paid for separately when it is produced, as id_8 explains. PJM says the market procures enough generation and demand-response resources for reliability up to three years ahead. Its latest auction secured 138,317.8 MW for 2028/2029, according to id_7. The $325/MW-day result hit PJM’s price cap, and the auction was about 6,800 MW short of PJM’s reliability requirement, per id_3. That points to a tight future supply-demand balance, and capacity costs can become a significant part of electricity bills, particularly for commercial and industrial customers, id_7 says. But if the auction still came up short, what are customers getting for the capped price? Cleared commitments, sure — but enough reliability? They’re paying for commitments from the resources that cleared, but the reported 6,800-MW gap means PJM still has a resource-adequacy problem for that delivery year. Watch PJM’s response to the shortfall, including its proposed FERC backstop-auction plan, and whether more resources can get online in time for 2028/2029. From RTO Insider:
Former FERC Chair Mark Christie has strong words of advice for current commissioners considering changes to PJM governance. “Do not back off to avoid pushback from influential stakeholder interests who do not want to give up their power within PJM and never will do so voluntarily,” he wrote in comments filed Aug. 16 ( AD26-7 ). “Do not settle for cosmetic half measures to get some ‘kumbaya’ moment that falls short of what is needed.
Christie’s Aug. 16 filing goes straight at the control point: give PJM’s board Section 205 filing rights across transmission planning, cost allocation, RTEP, and energy and ancillary-service markets. Stakeholders can comment; they don’t get a veto. And they can’t effectively fire the board when it makes an unpopular call. Sounds basic until you remember the board is deciding who funds upgrades for huge new loads — and which projects wait. ERCOT just reshuffled 325 large-load projects in response to an executive order. In PJM, Christie’s case is for an independent board that can file tariffs without negotiating every decision through the parties affected by it. A stronger board won’t shorten a transformer delivery date. But it can keep the planning process from treating every politically favored request as entitled to the same place in line — or the same bill treatment. Latitude Media writes:
A substantial proportion of Kansas’ existing coal fleet will likely stay online longer than planned thanks in part to data center load growth in the state. The utility Evergy is asking the Kansas Corporation Commission and the Missouri Public Service Commission for permission to delay the retirement or conversion of around 2.8 gigawatts of coal plants across the states by at least five years.
Evergy wants to keep 2.8 gigawatts of coal around for at least five more years while building 5 gigawatts of new generation — 3.9 of it gas. That’s an expensive way to insure a load forecast unless those data-center contracts carry real penalties for walking away. More than 2 gigawatts have signed Evergy’s new large-load tariffs, which makes the pipeline firmer than a developer slide deck. But a signed tariff deal still isn’t a signed interconnection agreement, and ratepayers need to see exactly which obligations survive if the facilities arrive late or never ramp. Keeping an old coal unit online isn’t as simple as flipping a switch in a planning model. You’re committing fuel supply, outage work, crews, and emissions compliance — then buying transformers and substation gear for the gas build on top of it. The other 500 megawatts of load growth helps, but it doesn’t by itself justify a multi-gigawatt buildout. Evergy says tariff approvals have made those connection pathways more certain. Fine — Kansas and Missouri regulators should make the customer-security terms just as certain before approving five extra years of coal and a 3.9-gigawatt gas commitment. James Downing, writing in RTO Insider:
“We really do consider the TSA a take-or-pay model,” Sharpe said. “If you tell us you’re going to bring 100 MW, you’re going to pay the revenue associated with that 100 MW, whether you show up or not, and so that makes sure that the rest of the customers are not paying for load that you’re not going to help contribute.”
Exelon has a billion dollars in transmission security agreements, mostly in ComEd territory, and that changes this debate. For projects at 50 MW and up, the customer is on the hook for the committed load even if the facility never materializes. Good. A 100-MW promise shouldn’t turn into a ratepayer-funded substation hobby project if the developer’s financing gets cold feet. But the TSA protects revenue; it doesn’t produce a transformer or move a delayed project through PJM’s interconnection queue. That gives regulators a useful benchmark for anyone proposing upgrades on forecast load. Evergy shows how tariff deals can make a pipeline look less speculative. Before system costs are locked in, regulators should ask whether those deals carry the same take-or-pay discipline. Chicago already has 39 data centers, while Mayor Brandon Johnson is calling for a moratorium after Illinois paused the 2019 tax credits. Exelon has addressed one piece of the bill-risk problem. Water use, local siting, and whether the power system can physically deliver on time are still very much on the table. Have feedback, a story idea, or a correction? Email us at powergriddaily at lantern podcasts dot com. Your notes help make Power Grid Daily more useful every day.
We’re watching for PUC action on ERCOT’s requested good-cause exceptions to Batch Zero timelines and the data-center verification gate. We’ll also track PJM’s response to the 6,800-MW 2028/2029 capacity shortfall, including its proposed FERC backstop-auction plan. And at FERC, watch for the next filings in docket AD26-7 on PJM governance reform, board independence, and Section 205 filing authority.
Links to every story are in the show notes, so take a look at the ones you want to read in full. That’s Power Grid Daily for today. This is a Lantern Podcast.