Catalyst with Shayle Kann - Unpacking DOE's proposal to transform data center interconnection

Episode Date: October 30, 2025

Last Thursday, Energy Secretary Chris Wright directed the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to consider rulemaking to fast-track interconnection for large loads — as long as they agree to be curtailable or colocate with dispatchable generation. So what does this proposal actually mean for interconnection?  In this episode, Shayle talks with Allison Clements, former FERC commissioner and current partner with digital infrastructure advisory firm ASG. Allison is also principal of 804 Advisory. Shayle also talks with Tyler Norris, doctoral student at Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment. Allison, Tyler, and Shayle cover topics like: How the proposal would standardize interconnection procedures for certain large loads, with study periods no longer than 60 days  The jurisdictional shift: asserting federal authority over a process traditionally under state purview   The types of eligible loads, including traditional data centers as well as ones that colocate with generation, also known as “hybrid facilities” The duration of flexibility and whether 2-hour, 4-hour, or longer durations are needed for curtailment Whether flexibility resources should be behind-the-meter or front-of-meter The potential disadvantages for bring-your-own-supply or bring-your-own-VPP Resources: Latitude Media: Wright directs FERC to fast track large load interconnection   Latitude Media: How the world’s first flexible AI factory will work in tandem with the grid   Latitude Media: OpenAI pushes the White House to invest in the grid to compete with China   E3: Demand Response as a Capacity Resource in SPP’s Era of Data Center Growth  Canary Media: In a first, a data center is using a big battery to get online faster  Credits: Hosted by Shayle Kann. Produced and edited by Daniel Woldorff. Original music and engineering by Sean Marquand. Stephen Lacey is our executive editor.  Catalyst is brought to you by EnergyHub. EnergyHub helps utilities build next-generation virtual power plants that unlock reliable flexibility at every level of the grid. See how EnergyHub helps unlock the power of flexibility at scale, and deliver more value through cross-DER dispatch with their leading Edge DERMS platform, by visiting energyhub.com. Catalyst is brought to you by Bloom Energy. AI data centers can’t wait years for grid power—and with Bloom Energy’s fuel cells, they don’t have to. Bloom Energy delivers affordable, always-on, ultra-reliable onsite power, built for chipmakers, hyperscalers, and data center leaders looking to power their operations at AI speed. Learn more by visiting⁠ ⁠⁠BloomEnergy.com⁠.

Latitude Media, covering the new frontiers of the energy transition. I'm Shail Khan, and this is Catalyst. 23 years ago, FERC issued Order 2003 to standardize large generator interconnection. We've now had two decades of experience of the problems and the solutions, which have been kind of haphazard and piecemeal over time, to get at this explosion of requests for supply to interconnect to the system. Coming up, who needs to be? needs coffee when you've got a FERC ANOPR on Large Load Interconnection.

When utilities need flexible capacity they can count on, they turn to Energy Hub. Energy Hub works with more than 170 utilities, coordinating over 2.5 million devices to manage 3.4 gigawatts of flexibility built for the moments when utilities can't afford uncertainty. Energy Hub builds and operates virtual power plants that utilities actually stake their grid planning on, coordinating EVs, batteries, thermostats, and more through a single platform, built for utility scale. Predictive, verifiable, and designed to perform when it counts. Learn more at energy hub.com.

Trillions of dollars are flowing into clean and critical infrastructure, but those investments aren't driven by technology alone. They're shaped by markets, by policy, by capital, and by the institutions that connect them. I'm Alfred Johnson, CEO of Crux, and host of a brand new podcast, Critical Capital. Each episode, I talk with people deploying capital, shaping policy and building the clean economy.

Tune in as we unpack how progress is actually made. Listen to Critical Capital on Spotify, Apple, or wherever you get your podcasts. Catalyst is supported by Fish Tank PR, an award-winning PR firm focused on climate and energy tech, renewables, and sustainability. Fish Tank is known for generating prominent and effective media coverage for the brands they work with. If you want a PR partner that's thoughtful, shoots straight, and gets results, you'll like Fish Tank PR. To learn more about Fish Tank's approach, visit Fish Tank,

That's f-i-s-h-fish-tankpr.com. I'm Shail Khan. I lead the early-stage venture strategy at energy impact partners. Welcome. All right, so this is wonky, but it is super important. We've talked innumerable times at this point on this podcast about connecting large loads, particularly data centers, the electricity grid, and how that has become like the epicenter of a huge challenge, both in AI world and in energy. world. And just recently, the U.S. Secretary of Energy, Chris Wright, wrote a letter on this topic that could have really huge impacts. It's a letter to FERC, Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission. And it is a combination of asserting FERC authority in a way that has not happened historically over large load interconnection, but also just as maybe even more importantly, trying to set a process to get those loads interconnected faster, particularly when they combined with generation. We've talked before about co-location of generation and data centers, and or if they are flexible loads and curtailable. Another thing that we've talked about before. So it ties together a bunch of stuff that I've been interested in, that everybody in the energy world has been monitoring, and it's going to play out pretty quickly because Secretary Wright requested this to be done with an actual order from FERC by April, which is basically

lightning speed from a federal regulatory perspective. So we'll see if it happens. But it's one of these things that, like, is very, very important for many folks downstream of this on both the energy side and the AI side, but that I think is actually poorly understood other than the headlines. So in order to parse out what's actually in this letter, in this proposed order, I brought on two folks who are wildly knowledgeable on the subject. One has been on the show before, Tyler Norris. Tyler is a PhD student at Duke University and wrote, I think, what is now considered to be kind of the seminal paper on data center load flexibility. And the other is Allison Clements. Allison was actually a FERC commissioner from 2020 to 2024, so she has deep experience inside the agency itself.

She's now a partner with digital infrastructure advisory firm ASG and the principal of 804 advisory. Here are Tyler and Allison. Allison, Tyler, welcome to you both. Thanks for having me. It's great to be here. Great to be your shale. All right. So excited to talk to you about this letter and notice of proposed rulemaking that Secretary of Energy Right sent out very recently. Alison, I want to start with you, since you have the procedural knowledge here. Like, technically speaking, what is this?

What did Secretary Wright send? Technically speaking, what Secretary Wright did was use a provision in the Department of Energy Organizing Act. provision 403B, which is why people are referring it as the 403B letter. He sent a letter to then-Chairman Rosner at FERC and all of the commissioners and said, I, the Secretary of Energy, direct you to consider issuing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, or an ANOPR, around large load interconnections. And it's a 14-page kind of bare-bones document that in the eyes of the secretary constitutes an advance notice of proposed rulemaking. That's the process. And now FERC can say, okay, great, we're going to consider it, and they either move forward and issue the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, which there has been some public indication already that they are eager to do, or they could decide not to issue the rule, but they would have to justify that decision.

Historically speaking, when the Secretary of Energy does something like this, would it be common or uncommon for FERC to say no, thank you? Well, it hasn't happened very often. The one time that people remember is under the next provision or the previous provision in that Act 403A in 2017, the administration sent over a letter with a proposed rulemaking to then chair Chattanyl Chatterjee and the FERC requesting them to subsidize coal and nuclear plants with some on-site fuel supply benefit. And that FERC unanimously redacted. moving forward with that proposal. Okay, so there's some possibility it doesn't move forward. But, I mean, reading the tea leaves, maybe Tyler, you can comment on this because I've seen you say it publicly. It seems generally, maybe outside of FERC, but in the public domain, this has been pretty well-received, broadly speaking, which, I mean, I think does run in contrast to I remember

that previous letter about Cole with 90 days of storage and so on. So your sense is that the vibes here are good, Tyler? So far, you know, let's not discount that. there will likely be other perspectives that have not yet been represented. But no, look, I think it was very significant that, you know, Commissioner Rosner came out of the gates expressing, you know, an eagerness to work on the proposal. You know, on the other side of the aisle, you had, you know, Senator Mike Lee that came out, you know, strongly supporting it. And a variety of different stakeholder groups that at least I've seen and companies that are involved in this space seem

to view it generally favorably. I think just a, parse out a key distinction, right? There's this jurisdictional question, and on that one, I think there's obviously going to be a variety of perspectives, and there will be concerns on the part of, especially of some state commissioners, officials, and certainly the investor on utilities. But with respect to the substance, that's where I've seen the most excitement, and I know we'll get into it. But in terms of what this would actually do to sort of improve the interconnection process. That's where I think there's been the most positive reception. All right. So let's dispense with the wonky jurisdictional stuff first, because I do think

it's important to talk about, but then we'll get into the meat of the substance here, which I think is what's more interesting. But Allison, back to you. What is distinct here about what the Secretary of energy is proposing in terms of the shifting of power and authority between FERC and states? It's wonky but fun, Shale. Of course. The Federal Power Act gives FERC, the federal regulator, jurisdiction over the transmission system, right? The high voltage poles and wires and the wholesale sales of electricity, whereas the state's reserve power for generation, as well as the distribution system. And there is a little bit of a fuzzy area as relates to whether or not FERC has jurisdiction over the transmission aspects of bundled rates in vertically

integrated states. So if you live in a state with a vertically integrated utility, the state commission has jurisdiction over not only your generation charged part of your bill and the distribution portion of your bill, but also the transmission portion of your bill. And FERC has never exercised authority, exercised its authority to take jurisdiction over that piece. The reality is, though, it's hard to imagine anything, you know, FERC has jurisdiction over practices affecting transmission rates. It's hard to imagine anything more directly affecting transmission rates than new loads hooking up to the transmission system and the costs that those loads impose.

And so I think the legal arguments are very strong in favor of the Secretary of Energy's position here and in favor of the position FERC would take. I'm not sure if it's by tradition, by culture, experience, or practice that it actually hasn't been asserted in the past. But so in practice then, what's the question at hand here? Say, I'm a large load. Say, I'm a data center or a prospective data center. center, and I want to go get cited in a regulated utility territory. Is the question, who has authority

over the tariff that is offered to me or the interconnection queue and how it is managed? Or like, what is the actual balance of power that's in question here? There are two parts of that hookup, right? If you're the data center in Georgia or in Oregon and you go up to hook up to the grid, your utility has authority to take you through that study process and hook you up and tell you what it's going to cost. But the state has jurisdiction over that decision when you hook up to the grid in vertically integrated states, right, even if it's hooking up to the transmission system. Whereas what this large, this ANOPR is saying is known FERC is going to now have jurisdiction. So FERC could standardize rules for that piece of the hookup across all utilities or some set of principles that these utilities must file. follow in a way that they have not done before.

So the second piece of the jurisdictional question is who has authority over the sale from the generator to the data center as the retail sale. And that piece remains with the states. Yeah, Shail, I'll just say, you know, as someone who originally came into this as a developer and an analyst, it was always a puzzle to me, right? why we had standardized interconnection procedures that were promulgated by FERC for generators, but nothing for loads. And setting aside all the concerns around rate regulation or even really anything that happens after you're already hooked up to the system. But just the process leading up

to actually getting connected, it was always a puzzle to me. And of course, Alison sort of articulates how it plays out in terms of the legal and jurisdictional dynamics. But I think, And, of course, in the letter itself, you know, the secretary references the fact that, look, we've had long-established standardized generator interconnection procedures, in part because FERC recognized that interconnection is inherently part of, you know, open access to the transmission system. And it sounds like they're making a similar argument. Okay. So it sounds like the, I don't know, the key thing here is if this goes through the jurisdictional shift, then, if a large load wants to interconnect to the transmission system, the utility will still be the one who has to manage that interconnection and introduce the tariff and all that in a regulated territory, but the oversight might shift from the State Public Utility Commission to FERC.

If this is true, and that would allow FERC to do something that's more standardized and sort of national versus it all being piecemeal. That's basically the gist of it. Yeah, that's right. Okay. All right, let's get to the meat and the substance of what the secretary is actually proposing. Can you just give Allison just a high-level overview of what you view as the key elements of the proposal? Absolutely.

I mean, it's 14 pages long. And, you know, when we issued a regional transmission planning rule at FERC last year, it was 1,200 pages long. So this is very bare-bones, high-level conceptual, and there's a lot of devil in the details. But what the main things that the rule does is, one, it asserts the jurisdiction we just talked about, which has been untested largely. Two, it suggests that loads connecting with new generation together should be studied together, which saves both costs and time. And three, and the exciting part that I know Tyler's going to want to jump in on, is that it suggests that if loads are willing to be curtailed, curtailable,

if loads will stop when asked taking power from the grid when asked by the grid operator, they should experience accelerated interconnection, and that study time should last no longer than 60 days. Can I ask, though, before we talk about the curtailable piece and also the hybrid facility piece, is it not saying overall there should be a faster load interconnection process for these large loads? And instead, it's saying only in these circumstances, we need to fix the problem for co-located generation and load and we need to introduce a faster process for curtailable load. Is it not like an overarching we got to connect data centers faster kind of thing? It is that. I think you see kind of an embracing of the co-location.

model. But overall, it is kind of a cut through the confusion and the uncertainty and hopefully the lack of transparency around how you get hooked up to the grid as new load today in this time where, you know, supply is tightening. And maybe that's the first, that's the part of the jurisdictional thing. It's like, okay, we need to streamline and standardize this whole process to make it better across the board. And then also specifically, let's do something new with regard to facilities that are co-ocated with generation or that can be curtailable. That's right. I mean, if you think back, you know, 23 years ago, 25 years ago, when FERC issued Order 2003 to standardize large generator interconnection, we've now had, you know, since that time,

two decades of experience of the problems and the changes and the solutions, which have been kind of haphazard and piecemeal over time to get at this explosion of requests for supply to interconnect to the system. And now you have an administration saying, you know, whether or not you like it, we're going to assert this jurisdiction that we're confident that FERC has, and we're going to not put us on a track for the next 10 years to face similar problems. Virtual power plants are becoming a reliable way for utilities to manage capacity. But enrolling devices is just the start. What really matters is confidence, knowing those resources will perform when dispatched and being able to prove it from the control room to the living room.

Energy Hub's platform handles the full picture, from near real-time forecasting, locational dispatch, and the kind of rigorous verification that holds up when regulators, grid operators, or leadership ask, did it deliver? Easy enrollment creates momentum, proven performance builds trust. That's why more than 170 utilities rely on Energy Hub to manage over 2.5 million devices delivering 3.4 gigawatts of flexible capacity. See what that looks like at energyhub.com. We're living through a profound economic shift, and energy sits at the center of all of it.

Trillions of dollars are flowing into power plants, transmission lines, battery factories, data centers, but the future of energy isn't shaped by technology alone. It's shaped by markets, by policy, by capital, and by the institutions that connect them. I'm Alfred Johnson, CEO of Crux, the capital platform for the clean economy. Join me for my brand new show, Critical Capital, as I talk with people deploying capital, shaping policy and building projects. Together, we unpack how risk is priced, how incentives are structured, and how progress is actually made. Listen to critical capital on Spotify, Apple, or wherever you get your podcasts. Are you tired of overpaying for big-name PR firms, but not really knowing what they're delivering?

Is your comms team wasting time reviewing lengthy messaging briefs and decks, instead of engaging journalists or producing content? Are you wondering why your competitors are getting press and you aren't? Fish Tank PR is an award-winning climate and energy tech, renewables, and sustainability-focused PR firm dedicated to elevating the work of both early stage and established companies. Whether you need to position yourself as a thought leader in between project announcements or translate complex ideas and technologies into tangible, compelling stories that resonate with the media, fish tank can help. Check out fish tankpr.com.

That's fiscichfishtankpr.com. Okay, Tyler, I want to ask you first, you're the curtailable load guy, but before we talk about the curtailable load stuff, I am interested in the second thing that Allison said is in there, which is what is called the letter hybrid facilities, right? That's the co-located generation plus load. And my read of it is that part of what they're doing here is saying, look, like in a default scenario, you submit a load interconnection request, you submit a generation interconnection request. those two things are considered independently, and it's not really unified. So this tries to unify them and say, consider them together. But beyond that, these things are kind of intertwined, because generation might be the mechanism,

if it's behind the meter, it might be the mechanism to be curtailable. So as you think about the big picture world of data centers and their energy provision, where does generation fit in in your mental framework? Yeah. Maybe it's worth just stating very clearly upfront that, I think one of the things that has been revealed over the past year, you know, based on this co-location docket in PJM and other considerations and other jurisdictions is that we really have an antiquated load interconnection study process and study criteria because, as you said,

it's really divided from the generation side. And so this has very significant consequences if you are talking about co-located generation and load, because what you might have going on, right, is that a generator can be essentially offsetting the withdrawal from the grid from a given load during the most stress period, right, which is what the utilities are actually studying to determine your network upgrades. And so if they don't consider the ability of that on-site generator to offset your withdrawal, you may be much more likely to trigger the need for major network upgrades. And of course, that's more expensive and it can take more. multiple years. So that's sort of part of the delay. I guess to your sort of broader question there,

I mean, I suppose it's no secret that the preferred option, right, for flexibility or we could say curtailability on the part of these large loads is, you know, either on-site generation or storage. I do think we've heard a lot about the generation option, and we hadn't really seen large-scale battery storage deals, right, just until the past few weeks. I think the first one that I noticed that was in the public domain was from Iron Mountain, which announced that they were going to do, you know, they were going to size batteries store, two-hour battery stores, 100% of their facility in New Jersey and then the same in Virginia. And then just last week, we saw the significant announcement from Calibrant and Aligned Data Centers that will do also a two-hour battery for a new

data center in the Pacific Northwest. And that specifically, they said, it was helping to accelerate its interconnection by, you know, on the order of years. So, This, even just this, I mean, it sounds very simple in a sense, just like, instead of studying them separately, study them together. But that would be a very significant development, I think, in the way we do load planning and could mitigate the need for substantial amount of upgrades and accelerate the interconnection process. How much visibility? I mean, you mentioned those, all those projects are two-hour batteries. And one thing that's not clear to me in this FERC order or just in general is how much visibility. we have, and maybe this is going to be

locationally specific, but how much visibility we have into the required duration of flexibility at any given time? I know there's a high level, you've done a bunch of great work on this Tyler on like, you know, over the course of a year, how much

do you require in order to maintain like system level resource adequacy? But as we start to think about, is what's going to sit behind the meter exclusively going to be generation or is it going to be storage or something else, how often does a two-hour battery do the trick, basically? And how often are we going to need more? And what's going to dictate that? Yeah. No, this is, look, this is one of the questions. I mean, I think

it's widely recognized that in the vast majority of events that you're talking about, that, you know, the two-to-six-hour range is sort of the sweet spot when you just kind of look at most of these periods of system stress. And so even with a two-hour battery, right, if it's, it's, it's, that 100% your nameplate, and the goal is to reduce your draw by 50%. Well, that becomes a two-hour battery, sorry, a four-hour battery, and then you can sort of adjust it thereafter. So we should also recognize like a two-hour battery can become a longer-duration batter if you're just, if you're using it for less than your nameplate. But I would point, there's another study that just came out a few weeks ago. It was by E3, and they used Southwest Power Pool as the market.

and they looked at four-hour duration, I think it was eight or ten-hour duration from either a battery or whatever the on-site option was. And I mean, what they found is that even with four hours, you end up with what we called an effective load carrying capability, in many cases, like above 50%, which is actually pretty close to like the ELCC of some generated options or even longer duration storage options.

So I think there is substantial ELCC value that can come from even relatively short duration batteries. And in a lot of cases, again, especially if you're not trying to go all the way to zero. But one of the bigger questions that arises is, you know, if you're trying to spec this data center to be able to ride through, you know, some massive grid outage, right,

where you're talking about over 24 hours or even out to 48 hours, of course you can't do that with a battery. And this has become a very interesting conversation around these kind of events. Because first off, if these are, transmission interconnected loads. You think about what type of event you'd be talking about. You'd have an outage of more than 24 to 48 hours. I mean, what we're really talking about are as an event on par with the largest blackouts that have ever occurred in U.S. history

that literally led to the formation of NERC. And so obviously, they're extremely unlikely. It's not to say that they could never happen. But the other thing, you start to think about what is going to happen during such a historic event and the assumption that you're going to be prioritized to get diesel shipped to your data setter as opposed to all the other competing needs, including serious emergency and life-threatening situations. I think that's been an assumption that might not necessarily hold. And usually you can't actually get more than a certain number of hours of diesel on site and storage.

And if you go beyond a certain volume, I mean, it actually becomes a little bit dangerous and there's a lot of concern about that. So, yeah, this is like one of the most interesting, I think, debates right now. now is like, do you really need to spec to $40? Even if you do in terms of like the size of the gen sets, can you actually get that much fuel on site or can you expect it to be delivered? Or is it sufficient to go with something that's like a two to six or sort of eight-hour solution?

There's like two things, two pieces here that I think are connected to each other, but but also are distinct that I always find people conflate, which is using some on-site asset could be a battery could be a generator, could be curtailable load, as a mechanism to get interconnected faster. And that's sort of the crux of what this FERC directive is all about. And then there's the, what are you using for backup power, which is what you were just talking about, right? And you theoretically can use some of the same asset, battery in particular, has like a role to play potentially in both.

But you can easily imagine that they are distinct things and distinct assets. I mean, currently that's how it is, right? Right? Like the diesel generator is just a backup asset, and it probably doesn't have runtime limits. They're going to keep it from, you know, operating too much. So depending on the amount of curtailment you need to do, like that just might not work for it anyway. So I don't know. I feel like I want to be careful not to consider those two things the same thing. Does that make sense? That makes complete sense. And yeah, the diesel's meant for right. Absolutely worst case scenario, emergency purposes. And so my sense is that all of those two. two-hour battery storage deals that we just mentioned at data centers, they still have gen sets likely diesel for those longer duration emergency events. And they're not at all

mutually exclusive. And in fact, it may be that predominantly we see that kind of arrangement going forward where we do have battery storage. You know, at a high level, if you're going to stop taking energy off the grid as a large load customer, you can curtail and just stop. You can go to your backup diesel gen sets or your gas rice sets, which are emerging, but you can face limitations in either case. You can decrease the intensity of your compute, which, you know, your guests in the past have talked about companies trying to do that. You can transfer your compute. You've had other guests on your show trying to talk about that, right? Or you could have a third-party curtailment on your behalf, some sort of contract, whether it be the virtual power

plant or otherwise, that would provide the decreased stress on the grid. And I think the kind of service of curtailment service and where it's coming from and the kind, whether it's energy, whether you're offering capacity curtailment and for how long and how you're getting paid, those are all really important details that haven't been defined anywhere. And so when you think about the bucket of issues that are going to arise in this proceeding, those are some that rise to the top for me. Yeah, I'm curiously at both of your take on this. I've been starting to conceptualize a little bit of a framework in my head for data. to center flexibility or large load flexibility in general, which is like a resource curve, sort of. It's a little different from your traditional like oil resource curve kind of thing.

But as you said, Alison, there's a bunch of things you can do. And the way I think about it is the x-axis is how much flexibility you can deliver, how much capacity, I guess, or like hours times megawatts, probably. And then the y-axis is cost, basically. And, you know, in principle, your lowest cost thing to do, assuming you can see. stay within your customer SLAs is just load flexibility straight up. It's managing compute differently, either shifting geographically or shifting temporally, right? But there's only so much you can do of that. It's going to be limited. So it's, you know, low end of the resource curve, but not that

wide on the chart. And then you start moving up the chart and you get, you know, batteries and generators and all this other stuff. And I guess the question, Allison, is, do you think that FERC in this proceeding will, is FERC going to be in the position to have to sort of distinguish amongst these resources, the mechanisms to get to curtailment or flexibility and offer ELCC type metrics for them and things like that and then define all those rules? Are they going to leave that to the utilities and say, look, you know, utility, you define what curtailment looks like, what curtailable load looks like. But if there is a curtailable load in your territory, then you need to run this procedure to get interconnected?

Yeah. I mean, I'll give you within kind of the FERC box answer and then maybe the political context in which this conversation is taking place and what that means for it. Within the FERC box answer, it is rare that FERC regulates down to that level of specificity, right? I mean, you have seen on the supply side capacity accreditation methodology and come in from the various RTOs, for example. And FERC largely deferred.

subject to kind of any potentially discriminatory impacts. And so historically, the agency has also really been kind of a thousand flowers blooming-type place and been ever since standard market design failed in 2000, the agency has been really skittish about requiring standardize anything across the board. It often does principles, satisfy these six principles, or when you're thinking about the types of flexibility, ensure that you value this, this, and this. So my instinct without getting into the politics is they're not going to get that specific on first take. And then you layer on the fact that the 403B letter from Secretary Wright suggested this should be done by April.

So it's the end of October. An a noper means you're going to take comments on an ap noper, then write a noper, then take comments on a noper, then issue a rule. That would be rocket speed in FERC world. So I think there's no way they can get to that level of specificity on so many of the details of these questions. And that's my biggest concern here. We don't want something rush that ends up failing to really take advantage of the opportunity that these flexibility alternatives provide and incentivize them in a way that works for the providers. Yeah. And maybe I'll just dive in there for a second because I think one of the good news stories is that we actually arguably have a little bit of precedent for this type.

what we might call quasi-firm service. It was really more meant for generators, and it's actually called conditional firm transmission service. It's really, to my knowledge, hardly ever been used outside some cases in the Pacific Northwest. It was actually a service. I think it was created in the sort of late 2000s, and the whole idea was, right, where you couldn't get fully firm transmission service, and you didn't want to go fully non-firm.

Could you get something that was conditional firm? And actually, I should shout out to Rob Gramer, because I think he was actually representing the American Wind Association at the time after he had less work to get this done. And so one of the big debates in that proceeding became, can the transmission provider define a certain number of hours that would be needed over the course of a year and that you could be curtailable, right, such that you could qualify for this conditional firm service? And of course, there was significant pushback from the transmission providers, and they said, you know, it's too hard to offer a certain number of hours a year. So instead, we're just going to tell you what the system conditions would be when curtailment would be likely to occur. And so that sort of gave an out. But I think that really the holy grail here that we're sort of talking about is it has to be, you know, bounded flexibility or bounded curtailment in terms of like defined maximum number of hours in a year. and then something with respect to like the duration of the events.

And if you look at, for example, like Google's comments in the PJM, this big process, they have this critical issue fast path process, trying to figure all this out. They say, look, we might be willing to actually participate in the demand response program. It's just that right now it's unbounded, right? So there's just like no limit on the number of hours that could occur. And so that, I think, is what we're getting that. And by the way, there are other models to look at to the UK has this whole curtailable connections program. and they actually remarkably, if they end up curtailing either the generator to the load more than what their sort of guarantee says, that they actually compensate the customer.

I don't know that we're going to get to that extent in this kind of program offering. But at minimum, right, it would seem to make sense that we have that as a voluntary option for, you know, the flexible loads that are able and willing to use it. Another thing that comes to mind that you didn't mention yet is the, you know, we've talked a little bit about, behind the meter and what the hybrid facilities might look like. But we also want to make sure that front-of-the-meter opportunities to provide this type of support don't get left out of the conversation. I heard someone say at a conference yesterday, you know, behind the meter and front-of-the-meter is going to evolve into around the meter, right, close to the meter. And I think that's a concept that we need to be careful doesn't get lost. So if you have, for example, front-of-meter storage solution that might be able to provide curtailability close to, but not behind the same point of interconnection as a new large load.

that this proceeding contemplate those opportunities as well. And that within the way that the letter is written would, like when they talk about hybrid facilities, are they talking about exclusively behind the meter, exclusively on site or potentially near site, you know, like in the same zone or whatever? Is it clear? I read it to say, you know, withdrawal and injection behind the same point. It doesn't suggest elimination of other opportunities. It just doesn't speak to them. What do you think, I don't think they went into that level of specificity. But, you know, for example, with what Southwest Power Pool is proposing, I think the metric

they use, we'd have to check the final version, but I think it was like it needs to be within two substations of you. It's sort of like if you're going to be somewhat co-located or have certain benefits from an associated generator with the load. So I think there's a lot of opportunity to get creative there. And one of the thing I just want to say about this, you know, almost inevitable proceeding that seems to be about to happen is that, look, like, even if it doesn't lead to a final rule, and even if, right, there are significant, such significant concerns about the jurisdictional dynamics

that FERC doesn't want to go there. And by the way, I want to respect that there are some legitimate jurisdictional concerns. I want to respect those. I think just the substance that this will hopefully elicit in terms of how to make this kind of service work is going to be incredibly valuable. And even if it doesn't lead to a final federal rule, that existing jurisdictions can sort of take that content and take that back to their ISORTO or at the state level to hopefully get these kind of offerings in place. Yeah, that's a great point. And I don't want, you know, there's a lot in the negative bucket. There's lots of positives and opportunity here. This is a giant problem. This is a path forward. Let's not let perfect be the enemy of the good. Let's make progress. You know, there's lots of concern about independence of the commission, about jurisdiction, etc., etc., that must be acknowledged as we go down this path. Tyler, I'm guess I'm curious to get your take on this flexibility resource curve, not necessarily the concept specifically, but the basket of things that will be available to provide curtailability. And in your mind, is the right, I guess the question is, is the right approach in your mind to say, you know, you need to be able to provide X hours of flexibility with the Y duration events or whatever, and then let the market figure out how much of that is going to be generation, store.

and load flexibility, or does it make sense to actually, I don't want to say put your thumb on the scale, but like try to dictate a little bit how much of what gets implemented there? Yeah, I know. And actually our research lab at Duke University has been, because we're modeling sort of the bulk power system. And so ultimately, you want it to be as sort of generalizable as possible, right, so that you can sort of represent any load that is utilizing this type of flexibility for all these purposes. And so you want to kind of parameterize it and make those parameters as generalizable as

possible, also because then we can actually create a market, right, where a variety of different options can compete either on-site or even to some extent off-site. I mean, this gets even more interesting and complex when you start to think about, you know, these large loads, potentially procuring the flexibility from other loads and the same balancing authority, the kind of simplest version of it's just for capacity, right, just resource adequacy. But then if you're actually talking about to sort of mitigate transmission congestion, you know, think about the electrical proximity of those customers and how you sort of do that study, I think that's sort of like the very advanced version. I hope we can get there, but at minimum, like, let's get it in place for

those that are doing it behind the meter. And yeah, whether it's load shifting, you know, actually shifting around the computational workloads, or it's, you know, it's battery storage, or its generation, or even, you know, just reducing operation. You know, I think there are cases where, just from a planning perspective, like you wouldn't assume that a new load is going to be drawing at its max pull during certain types of weather, you know, weather conditions. Is there a risk that this actually – I mean, you know, we're just seeing the emergence of some of these first, like the bring-your-own-v-PP type of thing, right,

which is not on-site but is near-site. is there a risk that this process actually disadvantages that stuff in its decency? Yes. There's always a risk. I mean, you know, to add to Tyler's previous response, which I totally agree with, the other nice thing about not getting that specific about technologies is that it's legitimate under the Federal Power Act, which is FERC's guiding principle, right? And so to the extent that there are attempts to do things like take away the opportunity

for bring your own virtual power plant, bring your own supply in other ways, that that doesn't satisfy the non-discrimination requirements under the statute. So to my mind, we need to make sure there are guardrails in place to protect for that purpose. Yeah, and I'll just say to, you know, this is so different from the way we do kind of interconnection studies right now where the way it works right now, right, is you're basically looking at these steady state fixed snapshots of the system, right, like single points in time. And you might do like a winter case, a summer case, and maybe one like during the, the shoulder months, but it is just a single fix point in time, whereas what we're talking about is like extending that out, maybe not all the way to 8760, right, but at least maybe to like a thousand hours in the year. And there are a few, I think, existing transmission providers that

could perform that kind of study. But we just, we're going to have to just get better and more advanced at doing this. And so I think part of this, frankly, is like, we just need to like train more more people on how to do this kind of more advanced study. And I'm hopeful that this proceeding will sort of shine a spotlight on those needs and capabilities so that we can sort of promulgate it more broadly. All right. So wrapping it up, I want to talk about what comes next. Alison, you mentioned the timeline. So this is all supposed to happen. There's supposed to be like a final order by April. Is that a firm deadline of any sort? Can FERC just take longer if they need to? Because that is remarkably fast. I'm remembering how long it took to do like, I don't know, various other

fur quarters historically. Yeah, it took us four years to issue from A. Noper to final rule, the regional transmission planning order 1920. And then there was an order on rehearing 1920A and then 1920B. It's not realistic what authority does the, you know, the Secretary of energy have in that case, the bully pulpit, a political pressure. But I think when that letter came out, There were a lot of FERC staffers who were thinking, oh, no, my Thanksgiving and holiday plans. So I think you have to imagine that if the commission is showing good progress, that that is a satisfactory place to be. But we will see what happens on that front. All right.

Well, thank you so much for both of you for taking the time and walking me through this. This is going to be something to monitor closely over the next few months. So we'll have you back on when we know what's what. But appreciate the time. Sounds great. Thanks so much for all. Alison Clements served as FERC Commissioner from 2020 to 2024 and is now a partner with digital infrastructure advisory firm ASG

and the principal of 804 advisory. Tyler Norris is a PhD student at the Duke University's Nicholas School of the Environment. This show is a production of Latitude Media. You can head over to Latitude Media.com for links to today's topics. Latitude is supported by Prelude Ventures. This episode was produced by Daniel Waldorf, mixing and theme song by Sean Markwan. Stephen Lacey is our executive editor.

I'm Shale Khan, and this is Catalyst.