Oklo Asks FERC to Reverse PJM’s Withdrawal of a 750 MW Project Over an Inverter Ride-Through Test
- FERC & Federal News Policy & Markets Power Quality Standards & Compliance
Marin Holt
- 0
- 9 minutes read
- Project capacity: 750 MW
- Technology mix: 150 MW advanced nuclear, 300 MW fuel cells, 300 MW natural gas
- Claimed delay: at least 14 months
- Cycle 01 total: 715 projects, 201.5 GW
Oklo filed an emergency complaint against PJM Interconnection on August 28. It asks the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to restore a 750 MW generation project to PJM’s first reformed interconnection study cycle. PJM withdrew the project, queued as C01-1735, on August 3. Oklo says the withdrawal rests on a stability test that PJM’s own guidelines apply only to inverter-based resources. The company estimates the decision delays the project by at least 14 months. It also says the delay raises development costs. FERC assigned the case docket EL26-101-000.
A ride-through test written for inverters, applied to a mixed plant
The project mixes three generation types: 150 MW of advanced nuclear, 300 MW of fuel cells and 300 MW of natural gas. That split is the heart of the dispute. Synchronous machines carry rotating mass that holds voltage during a disturbance. Inverter-based resources follow the grid through power electronics, so PJM subjects them to extra stability testing. Oklo’s plant contains both, and its two synchronous fuel types differ from each other.
PJM’s withdrawal notice said the project “[f]ailed to meet Stability requirements” and flagged discrepancies between the modeling files, the NextGen portal and the project’s PQ curves. Oklo asked for reinstatement the next day. PJM answered that Oklo “[was] not able to demonstrate stability for all fuel types through the low voltage ride through (LVRT) test per the DMDG Guideline.” Oklo replies that PJM’s Dynamic Modeling and Data Guidelines require fault testing only for inverter-based resources. PJM tested the entire facility instead. PJM called its decision final.
The portal had no setting for a fuel cell
The complaint documents a data-entry problem underneath the technical one. Oklo’s consultant told PJM in May that NextGen offered no usable fuel-cell option. The portal’s parameters matched a synchronous generator. They asked for values a fuel cell does not have, such as generator inertia. He entered the fuel cells as a solar generator on PJM’s own instructions. He also warned PJM that the entry would not make sense until the portal was fixed.
The procedural record runs from April 27, when PJM confirmed receipt of the application, to August 3. PJM issued one deficiency notice on May 15 covering six categories, and Oklo cured them. A PJM staffer then posted five further concerns to the project’s NextGen page on June 24. That comment generated no email, and Oklo says it learned of the comment only when PJM cited it in the withdrawal notice six weeks later. Oklo twice asked for a scoping call, on June 22 and July 21, and received no answer. It invoked the tariff’s dispute resolution process on August 17 before filing.
Why It Matters
PJM withdrew this project on August 3, the same day it announced that 715 projects representing 201.5 GW had qualified for Cycle 01. That cycle is the first run of a queue process rebuilt to favor projects that prove viability up front. PJM reports no remaining backlog from prior queues. A developer that misses the cycle waits for the next one. That is why Oklo asked FERC to rule by September 4. Oklo also asked FERC to waive the tariff’s 30-day base-case posting requirement if reinstatement needs it.
The wider question is which stability standard governs plants that are neither fully synchronous nor fully inverter-based. Hybrid sites that pair engines, fuel cells and batteries behind one interconnection are increasingly common. The ride-through obligations for those sites sit in guideline documents rather than in tariff language. This plant holds 450 MW of synchronous capacity against 300 MW of inverter-based capacity. Oklo argues that an inverter-specific test therefore has no basis in PJM’s tariff. A FERC ruling would set the first marker for how mixed-technology projects get tested.
One caution on the project’s identity. The public complaint redacts the location, and its scoping-call correspondence names Dominion as the transmission owner. Trade coverage has linked the filing to a planned 1.2 GW Oklo campus in Pike County, Ohio backed by Meta. The complaint itself does not identify the site.
Critical Perspective
Every fact above comes from Oklo’s own complaint. PJM has not answered it, and one detail in the filing cuts against the complainant. Oklo’s consultant told PJM in May that he had entered the fuel cells as a solar generator, because NextGen offered no fuel-cell type and asked for values such as inertia that a fuel cell does not have. If PJM then ran a fault test against a model built on a wrong resource type, an instability result is closer to a predictable output than to an arbitrary one. Oklo’s stronger argument is procedural, not technical: PJM posted concerns to a web page that sent no email, then cited them six weeks later.
The emergency framing also deserves a look at the calendar. PJM withdrew the project on August 3. Oklo asked for reinstatement on August 4, invoked tariff dispute resolution on August 17, and filed on August 28. It then asked FERC to answer by September 4. Three weeks of private process preceded a request for a seven-day turnaround.
The requested waiver carries a cost that falls on other parties. The 30-day base-case posting requirement exists so that every applicant in the cycle sees the model it is being studied against. Restoring one 750 MW project after that window changes the assumptions behind other developers’ study results. Oklo argues PJM’s error already makes the Cycle 01 model wrong. Either way, FERC would be choosing which set of developers absorbs the correction.
Sources
- Oklo Inc. v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Emergency Complaint, FERC Docket EL26-101-000 (filed Aug. 28, 2026)
- Utility Dive: PJM drops Oklo advanced nuclear project from interconnection study cycle
- PJM Inside Lines: Over 700 New Generation Projects Accepted Into First Cycle of Reformed Interconnection Process
- Power Engineering: PJM accepts over 700 generation projects in new first-ready, first-served queue
