Plain-English version of what FERC actually did. The expected path was a single final rule (or a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) under Docket RM26-4-000 that would have set one national answer to 'who pays for the grid upgrades large data centers force.' FERC chose a different mechanism: Section 206 of the Federal Power Act lets the commission open a proceeding against any existing tariff it suspects may no longer be 'just and reasonable' and order the operator to either defend the tariff or change it. A 'show-cause' order is the opening move in that proceeding — it puts the burden on the operator to come back with a justification or a fix on a deadline. What each of the six RTOs (Regional Transmission Organizations — independent operators that run the high-voltage grid in their region) now owes FERC: • Within 30 days (≈ July 18, 2026): a reliability report describing how the RTO will ensure adequate generation capacity to serve the AI / data center load growth already in its queue. • Within 60 days (≈ August 17, 2026): either a defense that the existing large-load tariff is still just and reasonable, or proposed tariff reforms. On cost allocation — the headline question — FERC committed in writing to 'guard against cost shifting among transmission customers' at the federal layer but said retail (residential and small-business) cost-shift protection is for the states. That is a partial accommodation of the position NARUC took in its April 2026 comment, which had warned that a one-national-standard rule would block states from adapting. FirstEnergy's June 5 ask — that data centers pay 100% of the transmission upgrades they trigger — was not adopted as a federal rule, but the door is now open through each of the six 60-day tariff filings. The co-location track from FERC's December 18, 2025 order to PJM continues in parallel and was not changed yesterday.
Primary source · Federal Energy Regulatory Commission — press release on June 18, 2026 action ↗
Why it matters
Three operational consequences that follow directly from yesterday's order. (1) The federal answer to 'who pays for grid upgrades' is now six answers, due around August 17. Whoever drafts those six tariff filings is writing the rules every new data center site will be permitted under for the next several years — that is exactly the regulatory-text ingestion surface the corpus is built around, multiplied by six. (2) ERCOT is not on this list because Texas runs its own grid outside FERC's interstate jurisdiction. That makes ERCOT Batch Zero (July 10 LLIS sunset, see below) the only large-load regime that locks in this summer regardless of what FERC does — every Texas site has a hard reason to clear it before the federal answer even arrives. (3) The Section 206 framing puts the burden of proof on each RTO to defend its existing tariff rather than on FERC to write one. That is structurally faster than rulemaking and structurally harder for opponents to litigate as a single piece — which means the corpus needs to ingest each of the six RTO filings the day they drop and cross-reference them against the state ratepayer-protection bills (NY, OK, the Abbott directive in Texas) that will plug into whichever federal pieces survive.
Related filings
T-7 ERCOT ILLE Form W Jul 10 / T-21 Form W step 2 Jul 24 / PJM 2028-29 auction closes Jul 7 / results Jul 14 / price band $175-325 MW-day / 13-state governor pre-negotiated band / MD FERC ratepayer complaint comment deadline Jul 27 extended / NY A11560 not delivered to Hochul / 10-day clock not started / passive enactment plausible / 4 deadline-anchored windows next 24 days
Plain-English background on why the four operational-track deadlines all matter this month. Each of these deadlines drives a specific action by developers, hyperscalers, or state parties, and each represents a concrete moment where Cliff can produce a...
FERC show cause orders Jun 18 / Section 206 / PJM MISO SPP CAISO ISO-NE NYISO / 30-day informational report Jul 20 / 60-day tariff response Aug 17 / 90-day abeyance request Aug 3 / five reform categories / cost-shift prevention is the big one / colocation + BTMG rules / flexible-load transmission services
Plain-English version. On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC, the federal regulator with jurisdiction over the interstate transmission grid) used Section 206 of the Federal Power Act to issue what are called 'show-cause orders'...
Spartanburg County SC / Jun 22 1 yr / pending ordinance doctrine fast track / Duke Energy Carolinas / Woodbury County IA / Jun 23 1 yr / Salix MidAmerican annexation carve out / MISO West / Cumberland County NC / Jun 15 6 mo / Duke Energy Carolinas / Jackson County MO / Jun 9 120 to 180 day extension / SPP MISO boundary / Lexington Fayette KY / Jun 9 until Oct 31 / KU LG and E / non-RTO non-IOU geographic expansion
Plain-English background. A 'data center moratorium' is a county or city ordinance that pauses all new data center applications for a fixed period (commonly 6 or 12 months) so the local government can write zoning rules, set impact fees, or just decide...
FL moratorium wave / Clay final + Hernando, Lake first reading Jun 23 / Santa Rosa 3-1 to draft / Zephyrhills final / 5-8 FL jurisdictions in 5 weeks / SB 484 backdrop / water-first concern
Plain-English version of what happened. Tuesday, June 23 was the single most active moratorium day Florida has had — three county boards moved separate ordinances forward in a coordinated wave. Clay County (just south of Jacksonville, ~220,000 residents) gave...