Pennsylvania PUC Votes 5-0 to Rewrite Data Center Curtailment Rules, With a Tentative Order Due October 1
- Data Centers Policy & Markets Regulatory State & Local Regulation
Marin Holt
- 0
- 9 minutes read
- Vote: 5-0 on both motions, September 10, 2026
- Curtailment docket: M-2026-3064961
- PJM 2028-29 reliability shortfall: 6,831 MW
- Tentative Order: October 1, 2026
- Target final order: January 28, 2027
The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission passed two motions by 5-0 votes on September 10, 2026. One sends staff to rewrite the state’s emergency electric load control regulations so utilities know which customers get curtailed first, and under what conditions. The other opens a Ratemaking Working Group on return on equity, settlement transparency and the Distribution System Improvement Charge. The curtailment work carries Docket No. M-2026-3064961, and a Tentative Order goes to the Commission at its October 1, 2026 public meeting. Both votes answer the same number: PJM’s July 2026 capacity auction found a system-wide reliability shortfall of 6,831 MW for the 2028-29 delivery year.
What Actually Changed
Pennsylvania already has emergency load control rules. What it lacks is an order of operations. Vice Chair Kimberly Barrow’s motion sends the job to two bureaus. The Law Bureau and the Bureau of Technical Utility Services must set the order, the criteria and the circumstances for curtailing a customer.
That is the clause data center operators should read first. The sequence is the point. Name who sheds load first, and you have ranked a computing campus against a hospital, a steel mill and a residential feeder.
The Commission also scheduled a technical conference this fall on cost responsibility for large computational loads. The stated question is how costs from large new loads are identified and allocated, including the impact on customers who are not driving the new demand.
The Numbers Driving It
PJM’s July 2026 capacity auction identified a system-wide reliability shortfall of 6,831 MW for the 2028-29 delivery year. PJM has since proposed a Reliability Backstop Procurement and an Interim Resource Adequacy Service to cover the gap as large loads queue up.
The Commission framed both votes against that backdrop. In its own words, the actions come amid growing concern about the balance between rapidly increasing electricity demand and the resources available to serve it across PJM.
Why It Matters
Curtailment order is a siting input. A developer weighing Pennsylvania against a neighboring PJM state now has to price a new risk. The state may write large computational load into the first tier of load shed. Interruptible service carries a discount, and a firm service ranking carries a cost.
The cost allocation conference matters more than the ratemaking group. Barrow’s motion puts the free-rider question on the record. That argument drives large-load tariffs in other states.
Both actions follow Governor Josh Shapiro’s August 18 executive order. It asked the PUC to examine data center curtailment procedures and the allocation of data center costs. The Commission has now answered with two dockets and two dates.
Enforcement Reality
Nothing binds anyone yet. The October 1 item is a Tentative Order, which goes out for public comment if the Commission approves it. A final order is targeted for the January 28, 2027 public meeting, so the earliest a rewritten curtailment rule takes effect is well into 2027.
The ratemaking track is softer still. A working group run out of the Office of Executive Director produces recommendations, not tariffs. The PUC said the review is not meant to overturn existing ratemaking principles or remove established financial tools.
Chairman Steve DeFrank framed the ROE piece as a process question. “Our responsibility is to make sure every dollar recovered from customers is carefully scrutinized while ensuring utilities can make the prudent investments necessary to provide safe, reliable service,” he said. The group will weigh whether ROE belongs in periodic, sector-wide cost-of-capital proceedings instead of inside each rate case.
Critical Perspective
Two unanimous votes produced no binding text. The October 1 item is a Tentative Order, public comment follows, and a final order is only targeted for January 28, 2027. The shortfall the Commission cites lands in the 2028-29 delivery year. A rule finalized in 2027 reaches a 2028 problem with about one construction season to spare, and only if nothing slips.
The ratemaking track has no clock at all. It sits under the Office of Executive Director, it produces recommendations rather than tariffs, and the Commission has already said the review is not meant to overturn existing ratemaking principles or remove established financial tools. Read plainly, that is a study that has pre-announced the size of its own conclusions.
Curtailment ranking also assumes the load can be curtailed. A campus with on-site generation or behind-the-meter storage answers a shed order by islanding, not by dropping load off the utility system. A rule that sorts customers by class does not reach a customer that can step out of the pool, and the largest new loads are exactly the ones most able to.
Cost allocation got the softest vehicle on the shelf. A technical conference collects positions. It does not allocate a dollar. Barrow’s motion names the right question, the customers who are not contributing to the new demand, but asking it in a conference notice puts the answer behind a curtailment rule that is not final until 2027.
Sources
- Utility Dive (2026-09-11)
- Daily Energy Insider (2026-09-11)
- PA Environment Digest (2026-09-11)
