Saturday, April 5, 2025
NRC Proposes $9,000 Civil Penalty Against Missouri-based Healthcare Provider
For Immediate Release: Palisades Restart Nuclear Licensing Board Rejects All Environmental, Safety, and Health Contentions: Watchdog Coalition Vows to Appeal
Dear Palisades Trackers, Please share
|
FERC review of PJM colocation rules for data centers, large loads may extend past mid-year: analysts
FERC review of PJM colocation rules for data centers, large loads may extend past mid-year: analysts
“Participants involved in co-location arrangements should pay the costs of any grid services they consume and the arrangements must be reliable and operationally manageable,” PJM told FERC.
Published April 1, 2025
Ethan HowlandSenior Reporter
The Susquehanna nuclear power plant near Salem Township, Pennsylvania. The PJM Interconnection on March 24, 2025, outlined options for rules governing locating data centers and other large loads at power plants. The image by Jakec is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0
The PJM Interconnection’s response to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s investigation into the grid operator’s rules for colocated loads indicates FERC may not approve new regulations by mid-year, as some people initially thought, according to utility-sector analysts.
FERC on Feb. 20 launched a review of issues related to colocating large loads, such as data centers, at power plants in PJM’s footprint. The outcome of the review could set a precedent for colocated load in the power markets FERC oversees.
Talen Energy, Constellation Energy and PSEG Power, a Public Service Enterprise Group subsidiary, are among the companies that are considering hosting data centers at their nuclear power plants in PJM.
In its “show cause” order, FERC asked PJM and stakeholders to explain why the grid operator’s colocation rules are just and reasonable or to offer rules that would pass agency muster. FERC established a comment schedule that enables the agency to issue a response by June 20. The agency said it could make a decision on a PJM proposal within three months.
However, instead of proposing new colocation rules, PJM on March 24 said its existing rules are just and reasonable. The grid operator also offered five conceptual colocation options that have been proposed by stakeholders or developed by PJM.
PJM urged FERC to issue “detailed guiding principles” that the grid operator could use to craft colocation rules for the agency’s approval.
The lack of a proposal from PJM likely extends FERC’s review process, according to analysts.
“FERC may still act on the show cause order in June, but we don’t rule out a new iteration of process instead of a clear policy decision,” ClearView Energy Partners analysts said in a client note on Friday.
It will likely take FERC until late this year to approve changes to PJM’s colocation rules, according to Capstone analysts.
Morgan Stanley analysts said their “base case” expectation is a FERC decision in September. “We were hoping for a more definitive proposal to move the process forward more quickly,” the analysts said.
In its response to FERC, PJM noted that any colocation rules may be affected by state laws. “Regardless of what co-location arrangements are ultimately sanctioned by the commission, permitted by the states, and elected by developers, participants involved in co-location arrangements should pay the costs of any grid services they consume and the arrangements must be reliable and operationally manageable,” PJM said.
PJM also said it prefers that colocated load be deemed front-of-the-meter, “network” load, a designation that would require a colocated data center, for example, to pay for certain grid services.
Among the options PJM floated, it said it preferred three of them, partly because they would maintain resource adequacy. The colocation options are:
- Load that elects to be network load and brings its own generation (preferred).
- Load that will cut its electric use during grid emergencies (preferred).
- Load that elects to be network load and that participates as demand response (preferred).
- Load connected to the grid with protections to avoid delivery of system energy to serve the colocated load (less preferred).
- Load connected to the grid with protections to avoid delivery of system energy to serve the colocated load or for the co-located load to receiveback-up service from PJM with permission (less preferred).
PJM’s colocation options “bode poorly” for Talen’s proposed colocation arrangement at the company’s majority-owned Susquehanna nuclear plant with Amazon Web Services and other behind-the-meter deals, Capstone said, noting PJM gave the only “true” behind-the-meter proposal a “less preferred” grade.
“We view PJM’s three front-of-the-meter … options as most amendable to the broadest pool of stakeholders, yet these would erode economics for merchant generators and data centers relative to the ‘isolated’ arrangements previously sought,” the research firm said.
Responses to PJM’s comments, and those filed by other stakeholders, are due April 23.
RECOMMENDED READING
- FERC launches colocation review, plus 6 other open meeting takeawaysBy Ethan Howland • Updated Feb. 21, 2025
- FERC rejects interconnection pact for Talen-Amazon data center deal at nuclear plantBy Ethan Howland • Nov. 4, 2024
- AEP, others press for FERC guidance on ‘gargantuan’ issue of data center colocationBy Ethan Howland • Nov. 4, 2024
Thursday, April 3, 2025
Trump officials unfreeze $1.3B for rural co-ops to buy Michigan nuclear plant power (April 2, 2025)
Trump officials unfreeze $1.3B for rural co-ops to buy Michigan nuclear plant power
- |
Tornado Missile Exemption for Peach Bottom ISFSI
NRC Makes Available License Application for a Method to Remediate Abandoned Uranium Mine Waste
NRC Makes Available License Application for a Method to Remediate Abandoned Uranium Mine Waste
Saturday, March 22, 2025
NRC Proposes $14,400 Civil Penalty Against Missouri-based Hospital
Nuclear Regulatory Commission - News Release
No: III-25-003 March 21, 2025
Contact: Viktoria Mitlyng, 630-829-9662 Prema Chandrathil, 630-829-9663
NRC Proposes $14,400 Civil Penalty Against Missouri-based Hospital
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has proposed a $14,400 civil penalty against Saint Francis Medical Center in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, for violations associated with providing appropriate oversight and guidance for a medical treatment using NRC-regulated material.