The April 30 deadline that has shaped policy expectations for six months has shifted by 60 days. The structural direction of the rule has not changed, but the timing implications for owners, planners, and utilities now run through the summer.
By Keith Reynolds | Publisher & Editor, ChargedUp!
The FERC Slip: Federal Action on Large-Load Interconnection Moves to End of June, Resetting the Mid-Summer Calendar
The April 30 deadline that has shaped policy expectations for six months has shifted by 60 days. The structural direction of the rule has not changed, but the timing implications for owners, planners, and utilities now run through the summer.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has committed to act by the end of June 2026 on the Department of Energy's Section 403 directive on large-load interconnection under Docket RM26-4-000, roughly 60 days past Secretary of Energy Chris Wright's original April 30, 2026 target. [1] The extension, reported by law firm Snell & Wilmer, confirms that the Commission is prioritizing legal durability over speed, a deliberate posture given the constitutional stakes of asserting federal jurisdiction over a category of interconnections historically left to state regulators.
For commercial real estate owners, urban planners, and infrastructure providers tracking the rule, the June timeline shifts the practical calendar without changing the substantive direction. The proposed framework still asserts FERC jurisdiction over the interconnection of loads greater than 20 megawatts directly to the interstate transmission system. It still applies 100 percent participant funding for grid network upgrades triggered by the interconnection. It still treats co-located generation and load (hybrid facilities) under coordinated study procedures. The Commission's June order will fill in the implementation details that the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking left open, including how to treat existing interconnection queue positions and whether the 20-megawatt threshold will rise to 100 megawatts as the Edison Electric Institute has urged. [2]
How the Calendar Now Reads
The DOE directive issued October 23, 2025 set the April 30 deadline using Secretary Wright's authority under Section 403 of the DOE Organization Act, a rarely-invoked provision that allows the Secretary to propose rules to FERC but does not require the Commission to adopt them. FERC opened the docket on October 28, set initial comment deadlines, and held them through December 5 after a one-week extension granted at the request of the Organization of MISO States and others. More than 200 comments were filed, with the record now reflecting fundamental jurisdictional disagreement between developers and technology companies on one side and state public utility commissions and many utilities on the other. [3]
The 60-day slip is not a retreat. FERC's June target signals both urgency and care. The Commission appears intent on answering the DOE call while fortifying the legal foundation that any generic standard will need to survive judicial review and integrate cleanly with state authority. The R Street Institute's comments in the docket flagged precisely this risk: the proposed ANOPR sets forth principles to inform rulemaking but implies that today's processes for load interconnection are not just and reasonable, a finding the Commission must support with record evidence to withstand challenge under the Federal Power Act. [4]
The North American Electric Reliability Corporation has signaled that it will not wait for the FERC order to land. NERC plans a Level 3 Alert for early May 2026 on large computational loads, building on its January 2025 Level 2 Alert and the March 11 Reliability and Security Technical Committee approval of the Large Loads Working Group's Assessment of Gaps in Existing Practices, Requirements, and Reliability Standards for Emerging Large Loads. On March 18, NERC's Standards Committee appointed a standard drafting team and accepted a Standard Authorization Request for computational load. [5] The Level 3 Alert and the FERC order will likely arrive within roughly 60 days of each other, creating a compressed decision window for utilities working on data center contracts and for state commissions adjudicating cost-allocation rules.
What the June Order Will Likely Decide
Stakeholder comments split into two major groups. Developers and technology companies favor a stronger federal role to reduce friction, shorten timelines, and manage transmission system impacts that extend beyond state boundaries. States and many utilities oppose the proposal, viewing it as a threat to traditional authority over retail service, distribution, and resource planning. The Center for Strategic and International Studies tracking of the comment record identifies the central tension: very large loads resemble generators in how they affect reliability and system costs, which the DOE argues brings them under FERC's existing transmission jurisdiction, but states argue this interpretation crosses into retail regulation reserved to them under the Federal Power Act. [6]
Cost allocation is the second decisive issue. The DOE directive sets out 100 percent participant funding as the default, marking a sharp departure from the traditional socialized model where transmission upgrades are recovered through regional transmission rates. Developers argue once-built transmission improves reliability and reduces congestion for everyone. States and consumer advocates argue that ratepayers should not subsidize corporate expansions, particularly in regions already struggling with affordability. The Commission's June order is expected to articulate at least an initial approach to crediting mechanisms that could partially offset upfront participant costs over time.
Hybrid facilities, i.e., large loads paired with co-located generation or storage, are the third major question. Stakeholders generally agree that hybrid projects should move through a single, coordinated interconnection process rather than be treated as separate facilities. The dispute lies over how to model them. Developers argue that when a data center brings its own power, studies should measure net grid use based on injection and withdrawal rights. Utilities and grid operators reject that logic, arguing planners cannot assume on-site generation will always perform as promised, and insist hybrid facilities be studied on a gross basis to ensure the grid can withstand contingencies when onsite power fails.
What This Means for CRE and Planners
The 60-day slip changes the deadline math but not the structural direction. Jurisdictions with capacity headroom remain structurally more valuable for large-load development. Those requiring transmission buildouts become comparatively less attractive once participant funding becomes the federal default. Owners and developers planning hyperscaler-adjacent commercial properties or industrial sites should treat the June timeline as the binding constraint rather than the original April 30 target.
Three operational implications follow. First, projects already in interconnection queues need to confirm their status before the new rules take effect, particularly in PJM where the December 2025 capacity auction cleared at the FERC-approved cap of $333.44 per megawatt-day and where 6,623 megawatts cleared short of demand. Second, cost-allocation forecasts in pro forma models should assume participant funding rather than socialized recovery. Third, hybrid configurations with on-site generation should be evaluated for the gross-versus-net study question, because the answer will determine whether co-located storage genuinely reduces network upgrade obligations or only marginally.
The Section 179D Energy Efficient Commercial Buildings Deduction sunset on June 30 lands within days of the FERC order. For owners considering behind-the-meter generation as a cost hedge against rising utility rates and PJM pass-throughs starting June 1, 2027, the practical decision window now compresses against both the tax deduction sunset and the FERC procedural reset. Sites with transformer commitments, interconnection signaling, and equipment locked by mid-May stand the strongest chance of clearing both clocks.
The structural shift in federal-state authority over large-load interconnection is consequential beyond the immediate June deadline. If the Commission's order survives judicial review, it establishes a federal floor for how the largest electricity users connect to the bulk power system, with implications for every subsequent hyperscaler contract and every commercial development that depends on transmission-level capacity. The June calendar is a milestone in that longer arc rather than a finish line. [7]
References
[1] Snell & Wilmer: FERC Sets June Action on DOE's Large Load Interconnection Plan (April 17, 2026) — https://www.swlaw.com/publication/ferc-sets-june-action-on-does-large-load-interconnection-plan-putting-federal-state-boundaries-at-the-center-of-what-comes-next/
[2] FERC Docket RM26-4 landing page (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) — https://www.ferc.gov/rm26-4
[3] Akin Gump: DOE Directs FERC to Initiate Large Load Interconnection Rulemaking (October 27, 2025) — https://www.akingump.com/en/insights/blogs/speaking-energy/doe-directs-ferc-to-initiate-large-load-interconnection-rulemaking
[4] R Street Institute: Initial Comments on the Interconnection of Large Loads (November 21, 2025) — https://www.rstreet.org/outreach/initial-comments-on-the-interconnection-of-large-loads-to-the-interstate-transmission-system-filed-before-the-federal-energy-regulatory-commission/
[5] NERC Accelerated Large Load Action Plan filing (March 2026) — https://www.nerc.com/globalassets/who-we-are/legal--regulatory/filings--orders/nerc-filings-to-ferc/2026/nerc_accelerated-ll-action-plan_rm26-4_signed.pdf
[6] CSIS: What's at Stake in FERC's Large Load Proposal (December 19, 2025) — https://www.csis.org/analysis/whats-stake-fercs-large-load-proposal
[7] Mayer Brown: FERC Large-Load Interconnection Preliminary Rulemaking — Key Takeaways (November 26, 2025) — https://www.mayerbrown.com/en/insights/publications/2025/11/ferc-large-load-interconnection-preliminary-rulemaking-key-takeaways-for-data-center-developers-other-large-load-projects-and-investors
[8] Davis Graham: Federal and Colorado Action on Data Centers and Large Power Loads (February 19, 2026) — https://davisgraham.com/news-events/federal-and-colorado-action-on-data-centers-and-large-power-loads/