The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's September 29, 2026 order accepted PJM's proposed one-time Reliability Backstop Procurement for filing, suspended the proposed tariff provisions for five months, and opened further proceedings over disputed terms. This is an important procedural step in the response to PJM capacity-auction shortfalls and forecast large-load growth, but it is not evidence that a backstop auction occurred, that generators were contracted, or that a data center has drawn its projected power. A separate October 23 notice extended briefing deadlines while PJM considered another filing. Those two federal records, rather than the proposal's original timetable, control the current procedural description.
The September 29 order accepted a filing and required further review
On July 31, 2026, PJM submitted tariff and Reliability Assurance Agreement revisions under section 205 of the Federal Power Act. PJM supplemented that submission on August 14. In its September 29 order, 196 FERC paragraph 61,245, the Commission accepted the proposed Reliability Backstop Procurement for filing but suspended the tariff provisions for five months, with a stated effective date of February 28, 2027, subject to refund and further proceedings. Acceptance for filing is a regulatory disposition of the submitted tariff records; it should not be flattened into a finding that every contested design element is final or that an auction may occur on the initial schedule.
The Commission also established a paper hearing and a separate proceeding under section 206 of the Federal Power Act, Docket EL26-108-000, to consider unresolved aspects. It expressly encouraged PJM to bring a new section 205 filing addressing the concerns. The operative event on September 29 was this order and its specified procedural consequences, not the delivery of electricity or the execution of power-generation contracts. The order's appendices and directives must be read together, including its rejection of a particular inadvertently submitted Reliability Assurance Agreement revision.
Sources for this sectionFERC order, September 29, 2026 ↗
Two capacity shortfall numbers describe different delivery years
FERC's background recounts a December 2025 announcement concerning PJM's Base Residual Auction for the 2027/28 delivery year. Taking Fixed Resource Requirement resources into account, that auction cleared 6,623 MW below PJM's reliability requirement. The order reports that 5,250 MW of load growth forecast for the delivery year was the largest driver and that nearly 5,100 MW of that modeled growth was attributable to data centers. This is a description of an auction result alongside the forecast inputs used in resource-adequacy planning. The forecasted growth is not meter-observed demand at named facilities.
By contrast, PJM's July 31 explanation tied an initial 6,831 MW backstop procurement target to the more recent auction for the 2028/29 delivery year. The two figures should not be combined, compared as if they refer to the same year, or described as capacity already bought. One is a reported past auction shortfall for 2027/28; the other is the starting quantity in a proposed one-time procurement for 2028/29, subject to subsequent adjustments. Neither number alone establishes a present blackout, an individual facility's load, or an environmental outcome.
Sources for this sectionFERC order, background on 2027/28 BRA ↗PJM July 31 RBP proposal summary ↗
What PJM proposed, and why the headline price is conditional
PJM proposed an RBP process intended to obtain new eligible generation resources for commitment terms of up to 15 years. Its July 31 summary described a maximum willingness to pay corresponding to an MW-weighted average of $555 per MW-day. These are design parameters of a proposed procurement mechanism, not an executed purchase price, an electricity retail rate, or an estimate of what a particular household will pay. An offer, if later accepted, would have its own contractual and tariff context.
PJM further proposed to reduce the initial target for certain qualifying new resources secured through executed bilateral contracts or otherwise supplying eligible new capacity, with the objective of avoiding double procurement. Its September 30 operational update confirmed that the originally planned September 30 RBP start would not proceed and that milestones would be reviewed. It described a proposed eligibility condition requiring new resources to enter commercial operation by June 1, 2032. That date is a rule proposed for potential participants; it is not a verification that an announced plant is constructed, interconnected, dispatched, or providing electricity.
Sources for this sectionPJM initial description, July 31 ↗PJM post-order status, September 30 ↗
Cost allocation requires more than a snapshot of forecast load
Among the central issues FERC set for further review was how RBP costs would be assigned to electric-distributor zones and ultimately to load-serving entities. PJM's submitted method used a snapshot based on changes in forecast Load Adjustments between delivery years, with qualifying supply offsets. The order recognized that using a snapshot and state or regional retail regulators' subsequent role might be reasonable in principle, but questioned whether the underlying Load Adjustment data consistently captured large-load growth. Some large loads may already have been included in the baseline load forecast rather than in the adjustment figures, leaving an allocation based on the adjustments alone potentially incomplete.
The Commission did not simply announce that all costs should be charged to data centers, or that all general ratepayers will necessarily bear them. It asked for more evidence about a defensible allocation method. The order also considered the proposed treatment of transmission-owner or electric-distributor responsibilities and collateral to be posted by load-serving entities. On collateral, FERC questioned the support for PJM's initial $1.5 million per committed MW credit rate and the flexibility offered to participants. These concerns concern the design and justification of financial obligations, not proof of any actual payment by a specific firm.
Sources for this sectionFERC discussion of cost allocation, pp. 61-65 ↗FERC discussion of collateral, pp. 80-82 ↗
October 23 extended briefing deadlines, not the procurement itself
The second controlling record is a one-page FERC Notice Addressing Motion to Hold Proceeding in Abeyance dated October 23, 2026, in Dockets ER26-3380-000 and EL26-108-000. It records that PJM moved on October 13 to hold the paper-hearing proceedings and briefing in abeyance while it prepared an anticipated new section 205 filing to address the September 29 order. Northern Virginia Electric Cooperative supported that motion in an October 14 response. These are dated procedural filings and a stated intention to submit a later document, not proof that the later tariff revision had been filed or approved.
The operative change made by the October 23 notice was narrower than PJM's requested general pause: it extended initial briefs in EL26-108-000 from November 13, 2026 to 5 p.m. January 11, 2027, and reply briefs from December 3, 2026 to 5 p.m. January 26, 2027. The notice does not itself set a new RBP auction opening date, accept a revised cost-allocation tariff, or report procurement awards. As of this review on October 25, 2026, these two published Commission documents provide the verified order and amended briefing calendar; the current status of any additional docket activity must be checked against subsequent official filings.
Sources for this sectionFERC notice, October 23, 2026 ↗FERC underlying order, September 29 ↗
What these records do not establish
An accepted-for-filing tariff is not the same thing as a completed auction or a final determination about all disputed rules. February 28, 2027 is the suspended effective date recited in the order, not an assured bid-opening date. The October 23 notice does not grant final approval to a replacement tariff and does not establish that the Commission accepted every component of the initial proposal. The 6,831 MW initial target and $555 per MW-day proposed ceiling must not be reported as contracted capacity or actual clearing prices.
Similarly, planning-load growth attributed to data centers is not a facility-level meter record, and an auction's shortfall below a resource-adequacy requirement is not direct observation of a grid outage. The filings do not identify a data center that violated a rule, demonstrate a generating plant's commercial operation, show the amount of an electric bill, or establish environmental or public-health effects. Stronger versions of those claims require distinct observed records, not inference from tariff figures. The disagreement among participants in a regulatory proceeding is evidence that the issue was contested, not by itself a factual finding for either side.
- A filing accepted subject to further procedures is not a completed procurement.
- Forecast large-load growth is not measured customer demand.
- A proposed cost-allocation formula is not a paid retail charge.
- A procedural deadline extension is not approval of replacement tariff language.
Sources for this sectionFERC September order ↗FERC October notice ↗
Which additional records could establish stronger conclusions
To determine the enforceable final RBP terms, the next evidence layer would be PJM's actual revised section 205 submission, if filed, together with the resulting FERC order and the applicable tariff sheets. To determine whether a procurement proceeded, one would need PJM's later official procurement schedule and rules, qualification records, published auction results and awards, and any applicable contract records. The initial proposed target would then need to be reconciled with offsets and the amounts actually procured.
To attribute costs to a zone, load-serving entity, or retail customer, one would need the finalized federal allocation mechanism, any relevant state commission order, distributor or utility settlement records, and the retail tariff or bill. To test a load-growth assertion, obtain the forecast's input and assumptions, interconnection or service-request status, and actual metered load for the relevant period. To examine air, water, or health effects, use facility permits, operating logs, reported emissions, and appropriate monitoring or exposure evidence. These record types answer different questions; none should substitute for another simply because the topic is data centers.
Sources for this sectionFERC order on remaining proceedings ↗PJM post-order operational notice ↗
The source controls over this summary. Corrections should identify the disputed sentence and the strongest available primary record.
Questions about framing and source selection: [email protected]. A named editor has not yet been published; no cited researcher is represented as responsible for this page.
Send the page URL, disputed claim and supporting source. Review does not require endorsement.
Request a correction →