FERC RM26-4 / ~17 days out / three possible form factors / 3 preemption signals to watch

Plain-English framing. (Recap from yesterday for new context.) FERC committed in April to act by end of June on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking covering large-load interconnection to the interstate transmission system. The substantive ruling could take three forms: a full Notice of Proposed Rulemaking with specific draft rule language (most ambitious, slowest to finalize); a Policy Statement signaling FERC's positions on the issues without binding rules (faster, less durable); or a procedural order keeping the docket open and inviting further input (lowest-impact, kicks the substantive decision to the new commissioners later in 2026). The Trump-appointed FERC chair (Mark Christie) and the two Democratic commissioners have publicly differed on jurisdictional scope. Christie has signaled willingness to assert broader FERC jurisdiction over co-located generation and load configurations; the Democratic commissioners have expressed concerns about pre-empting state-level rate-design choices like NY S10642 and Oregon Schedule 96. The June 30 deadline forces a vote regardless of the underlying disagreement. What to watch in the order text. Three signals will determine whether the ruling pre-empts state activity or leaves it alone: (1) language around 'integrated load and generation' configurations (controls Talen-Amazon-style colocation); (2) language around 'cost allocation between load types' (controls whether states can keep transmission costs entirely on data centers); (3) language around 'study process minimums' (controls whether ERCOT's Batch Zero, NYISO's class-year, and MISO's serial study can each continue to look different from each other). Any one of those preemptions reorders the state-level fight.

Primary source · FERC / Holland & Knight / Power Magazine ↗