{"id":4922,"date":"2024-11-15T19:02:23","date_gmt":"2024-11-16T01:02:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.paenergyratings.com\/blog\/?p=4922"},"modified":"2024-11-15T19:02:30","modified_gmt":"2024-11-16T01:02:30","slug":"ferc-nixes-pa-data-center-deal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.paenergyratings.com\/blog\/ferc-nixes-pa-data-center-deal\/","title":{"rendered":"FERC Nixes PA Data Center Deal"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

PJM Co-Located Load Appeal Rejected<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\"FERC
The FERC recently short circuited the agreement framework for a nuclear powerplant to power an AWS data center. But is there a good reason behind it? And could it be a factor for other big data centers?<\/em><\/center><\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Starting in March 2023, the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station<\/a><\/strong> began sending 300 MW to a 1200 acre data campus in Berwick. This past March, 2024, Amazon Web Services (AWS)<\/strong> bought the campus<\/a>. It plans to power energy-hungry computers for AI, web servers, and data-mining. However, the FERC<\/strong> recently rejected<\/a> the campus’s power connection plan. For the moment, AWS<\/strong> plans for the new data campus sit on hold. But with other big US data centers in the works, the situation is troubling. With other potential power-purchase plans afoot, let’s see why the FERC<\/strong> nixed this data center deal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Load Behind the Generator Meter<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

PPL<\/a><\/strong> owns both the transmission lines and the power plant in Berwick. According to FERC<\/strong>‘s basic interconnection rules, RTO\/ISO agreements must limit utilities that offer transmission so they don’t favor their own power plants. As a result, the original 2015 pro forma<\/em> agreement between PPL<\/strong> and PJM<\/strong> put power from the nuclear plant straight on the grid. It also gave other power plants access to the PJM grid, as well. Customers then get their power from the grid. Of course, FERC<\/strong> does allow for other situations that are not as simple. But getting those approved as “non-conforming” cases isn’t easy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For example, a power plant connects its power lines to the PJM grid at the “Point of Interconnection”. But, a power plant can also send power directly to an end-use customer on its side of the interconnection. Grid planners call this end user a “co-located load.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2024, PJM<\/strong>, PPL<\/strong>, and Susquehanna<\/strong><\/a><\/strong> changed their interconnection agreement. This way, Susquehanna<\/strong> could power the AWS<\/strong> data center as a co-located load from \u201cBehind the Generator Meter\u201d. In short, the nuclear plant would make enough power for the data center campus. It would also send power to the PJM<\/strong> grid but at an amount lower than it was rated for.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Disrupting the FERC Standard<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Now while this sounds simple enough, FERC<\/strong>‘s job was to to decide if the deal qualified as non-conforming interconnection. It certainly disrupted the standard rules and riled several generator companies. For example, PECO<\/a><\/strong> parent, Exelon,<\/strong> and AEP<\/strong> cried foul because the plan seemed to raise more problems than it addressed. Their objections included:<\/p>\n\n\n\n