On September 24, 2026, FERC denied a complaint filed by Oklo, Inc. (Oklo) against PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) alleging that PJM unlawfully administered the interconnection process to Oklo’s 750-megawatt project (Project) and unjustifiably withdrew the Project from Cycle 01.  In denying the complaint, FERC found that Oklo failed to meet its burden under Federal Power Act (FPA) section 206 by failing to show that PJM violated its Open Access Transmission Tariff (Tariff).

Oklo submitted the Project’s data, signed agreement, and deposit information to PJM for Cycle 01 on April 27, 2026. PJM issued its deficiency notice on May 15, 2026, identifying six deficiencies. Oklo asserted that it timely cured the six deficiencies identified in the notice, and then on June 24, 2026, PJM identified five additional, potential deficiencies, including failure to re-submit a dynamic modeling development guidelines (DMDG) report and checklist when Oklo submitted its cure to the May 15 Deficiency Notice. On August 3, 2026, PJM then withdrew the Project from Cycle 01. On August 4, 2026, Oklo stated that PJM issued a Withdrawal Notice, explaining that the Project was deficient.

Oklo’s complaint asserted that: (1) PJM violated its Tariff by departing from its requirements regarding the identification of and opportunity to cure deficiencies, and (2) PJM violated FPA section 205 by deviating from its guidelines and applying a condition of service that has no basis in the Tariff.

FERC denied Oklo’s complaint, finding that Oklo failed to show that PJM violated that Tariff during the Project’s interconnection process. First, FERC determined that PJM’s decision to reject and withdraw the Project from Cycle 01 was consistent with the Tariff because PJM found that deficiencies identified in the May 15 Deficiency Notice remained unresolved after Oklo submitted its cure package. Second, FERC rejected Oklo’s assertion that PJM violated FPA section 205, highlighting that the Commission “generally allows transmission providers to exercise their engineering judgment when conducting interconnection studies,” and stating that PJM properly rejected the Project because Oklo failed to satisfy modeling requirements for the Project’s Maximum Facility Output, consistent with PJM’s DMDG.

FERC noted that due to rising energy demands in the PJM region, it is critical for PJM to collaborate with project developers “before, during, and after the interconnection process” to ensure that expectations and guidelines are clearly understood. Additionally, FERC clarified that Oklo still has the opportunity to cure the Project errors and submit to PJM’s Cycle 02 or consider submitting the Project to PJM’s Expedited Interconnection Track process.

FERC’s order, issued in Docket No. EL26-101-000, can be found here.