Maryland Lawmakers Back FERC Complaint Over $1.6 Billion
- Policy & Markets Regulatory State & Local Regulation
Marin Holt
- 0
- 6 minutes read
- Ratepayer cost at stake: $1.6 billion over a decade
- Lawmakers backing complaint: 80 Maryland legislators
- Grid operator challenged: PJM Interconnection
- FERC comment deadline: July 27, 2026
80 Maryland state lawmakers told the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on June 17, 2026 that they support a formal complaint to stop the state’s electricity customers from paying $1.6 billion over the next decade for transmission lines built mainly to serve out-of-state data centers. The Maryland Office of People’s Counsel, the state’s ratepayer advocate, filed the complaint in May 2026 against PJM Interconnection, the grid operator for Maryland and 12 other states. The lawmakers’ letter asks FERC to order PJM to change how it divides the cost of new high-voltage lines so that data centers, not households, pay for the grid expansion their demand drives.
PJM splits the cost of regional transmission projects two ways. A “load-ratio share” method assigns about half of the cost to each zone based on its share of total demand, and a “solution-based distribution factor” analysis assigns the rest. The complaint argues both methods force Maryland customers to subsidize lines whose need is driven by data center load concentrated in other PJM zones, chiefly Northern Virginia. The Office of People’s Counsel wants FERC to reassign those project costs to the zones where the data centers sit, so state-level large-load tariffs address them directly.
Critical Perspective
Eighty Maryland legislators want FERC to stop households from paying $1.6 billion over a decade for lines built mainly to serve data centers in other PJM zones. The letter carries political weight, but it does not grapple with PJM’s position that its load-ratio share method has allocated regional transmission cost this way for years. Oregon already took the more direct route the complaint stops short of, requiring any load above 20 MW to fund its own distribution expansion rather than asking a regulator to re-slice an existing tariff. If reassigning cost to the zones where data centers actually sit is the cleaner fix, why is Maryland petitioning FERC to rewrite PJM’s formula instead of enacting an Oregon-style large-load charge at home?
Why It Matters
Maryland is the first state ratepayer advocate to ask FERC to rewrite PJM’s cost-allocation tariff specifically over data-center-driven transmission, and the backing of 80 legislators turns a regulatory filing into a political fight. The dispute mirrors actions elsewhere in PJM and beyond: Oregon now requires loads above 20 MW to fund their own distribution expansion, and the New York Public Service Commission opened its own proceeding on data center grid-upgrade cost allocation. If FERC agrees with Maryland, the ruling would set a precedent that shifts billions of dollars in future grid-upgrade costs across PJM’s 13-state footprint away from households and onto the large loads that trigger them.
What Happens Next
FERC opened the complaint for public comment, with the deadline extended to July 27, 2026. PJM will file an answer defending its current methodology, and large customers, utilities, and other states are expected to weigh in. If FERC rules for Maryland, PJM would have to refile its cost-allocation tariff; if the commission rejects the complaint, Maryland customers remain responsible for the $1.6 billion. The case runs parallel to FERC’s broader large-load rulemaking, Docket RM26-4, in which the commission on June 18, 2026 directed all six U.S. grid operators, including PJM, to draft new rules for connecting data centers.
Sources
- Utility Dive — Maryland lawmakers back data center transmission cost complaint at FERC
- American Public Power Association — Complaint Filed at FERC Challenges PJM Rules Tied to Data Center-Driven Transmission Costs
- Technical.ly — Maryland challenges PJM transmission costs tied to data centers
