Generation

Subscribe to Generation via RSS

On May 21, 2026, FERC denied a complaint filed by Gaston Green Acres Solar, LLC (Gaston) and Bethel NC Hwy 11 Solar, LLC (Bethel) (collectively, with Gaston, Complainants) against PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) arguing: (1) PJM’s Open Access Transmission Tariff (Tariff) is unjust and unreasonable because it prevented Complainants from withdrawing their generation projects from PJM’s generator interconnection process Transition Cycle No. 1 without penalty, and (2) in the alternative, FERC should order PJM to issue Bethel its own generation interconnection agreement (GIA) if PJM’s Tariff is not deemed to be unjust and unreasonable in this regard. FERC denied the complaint, finding the Complainants did not satisfy their burden under Federal Power Act section 206, failed to identify Tariff provisions requiring the issuance of a GIA for Bethel, and did not demonstrate that PJM violated its Tariff.

On May 19, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit) dismissed Cage Ranch Solar LLC’s and Cage Ranch Solar II, LLC’s (collectively, Cage Ranch) consolidated petitions for review of FERC orders denying Cage Ranch’s complaint and waiver request, which sought to set aside a deadline by which Southwest Power Pool, Inc.’s (SPP) tariff (Tariff) required Cage Ranch to post financial security for network upgrade costs to support its interconnection requests and maintain its queue position.  The DC Circuit dismissed the petitions for failure to demonstrate a concrete injury in fact necessary to establish Article III standing.

On April 28, 2026, FERC accepted PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.’s (PJM) Open Access Transmission Tariff (Tariff) revisions to establish a price cap and floor for all Reliability Pricing Model (RPM) auctions for the 2028/2029 and 2029/2030 Delivery Years, finding that the price cap and floor will allow PJM to signal the need for additional resources while protecting customers from higher prices.

On April 16, 2026, FERC accepted in part and rejected in part PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.’s (PJM) compliance filing proposing changes to PJM’s Open Access Transmission Tariff (Tariff). FERC accepted PJM’s clarification of procedures for using new generating facilities to serve Co-Located Load but rejected revisions to the definition of “Co-Located Load” and PJM’s incorporation of such definition in specific Tariff sections. FERC ordered PJM to submit a further compliance filing by May 18, 2026.

On February 27, 2026, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) filed revisions to its Open Access Transmission Tariff (Tariff) to establish an Expedited Interconnection Track process for Generating Facilities (EIT Process). According to the filing, the proposed EIT Process would enable PJM to consider up to 10 expedited interconnection requests per calendar year for large new or uprated Capacity Resources. PJM requested an effective date of July 31, 2026, for the tariff revisions implementing the proposed EIT Process and requested an order from FERC by May 28, 2026.

On October 31, 2025, FERC granted ISO New England’s (ISO-NE) request for a limited waiver of its Tariff and Billing Policy to refund, approximately $68,000 in Capacity Performance charges to Brookfield White Pine Hydro LLC (Brookfield).  The waiver relates to six five-minute intervals during a June 24, 2025 Capacity Scarcity Condition in which Harris Hydro Station’s Unit 2 (Harris 2) was manually held below its EcoMax[1] because ISO-NE allowed a non-commercial Large Generating Facility to operate on a constrained transmission line, thereby limiting Harris 2’s output and triggering an underperformance assessment.

On August 25, 2025, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) granted NextEra Duane Arnold, LLC (“NEDA”) a waiver of certain sections of the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.’s (“MISO”) tariff to use MISO’s generating facility replacement process for the recommissioning of the Duane Arnold nuclear power facility (“Project”) in Palo, Iowa. The order also extends the Project’s commercial operation date to December 31, 2029.

On July 11, 2025, the D.C. Circuit upheld PJM Interconnection L.L.C.’s (“PJM”) assessment of $12 million in penalties against Energy Harbor, LLC (“Energy Harbor”) for failing to perform when called upon by PJM during a major winter storm in December 2022. The D.C. Circuit held that PJM-approved maintenance at Energy Harbor’s coal-fired generation facility, the W.H. Sammis Plant (“Sammis Plant”), was not the sole cause of the Sammis Plant’s nonperformance, and therefore Energy Harbor was not excepted from penalties under PJM’s Open Access Transmission Tariff (“OATT”).

On April 29, 2025, FERC partially granted rehearing in the case of Cometa Energia, S.A. de C.V. (“Saavi”) against the California Independent System Operator Corporation (“CAISO”), finding a provision of CAISO’s Business Practice Manual for Reliability Requirements (“Business Practice Manual”) must be included in CAISO’s tariff under the “rule of reason,” as the provision significantly impacts rates and services. In its underlying complaint, Saavi argued that CAISO unlawfully terminated the deliverability status of its 181.5 megawatt generating unit (“Project”). In its rehearing order, FERC agreed that under the “rule of reason” CAISO should have reflected the deliverability status provision of its Business Practice Manual in its tariff, but FERC declined to reinstate the Project’s deliverability status citing concerns over reduced resource adequacy for other generating units.

On April 10, 2025, FERC addressed arguments on rehearing that clarified, but did not modify the outcome of, a November 1, 2024, order (“Rejection Order”) rejecting PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.’s (“PJM”) proposal to increase the co-located data center load at a Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC (“Susquehanna”) nuclear generating facility. FERC again found that PJM’s amended Interconnection Service Agreement’s (“ISA”) non-conforming provisions were not necessary deviations from the pro forma ISA. However, FERC did clarify that the Rejection Order did not prevent other entities from filing non-conforming ISAs to address issues relating to co-located data center load.