• State regulators defended existing state-level interconnection processes
• Industry stakeholders seek modifications

State utility regulators from Georgia, Arkansas and North Carolina have begun pushing back against a federal proposal to assert new control over the interconnection of large electricity loads — particularly data centers — warning that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) contemplated rulemaking could upend state authority, disrupt existing processes and create jurisdictional conflict.

Their comments mark the first major clash in what is shaping up to be a national battle over who controls the rapidly growing large-load interconnection queue.

The filings respond to an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR) transmitted by Energy Secretary Chris Wright under Section 403 of the DOE Organization Act. The proposal seeks to establish a FERC-jurisdictional, standardized interconnection process for loads above 20 MW, arguing that such load interconnections “fall squarely within the Commission’s jurisdiction” because transmission access is functionally indistinguishable from generator interconnection.

But state regulators countered that the proposal risks overriding systems that are already working.

The Arkansas Public Service Commission warned that the ANOPR would disrupt “well-functioning regional and state processes,” citing new state laws and recent reforms in SPP and MISO that already expedite large-load interconnection reviews. Arkansas highlighted its vertically integrated structure and said FERC’s proposal would “blur the distinction between retail service and transmission interconnection,” jeopardizing siting authority, cost recovery frameworks and the state’s obligation-to-serve rules.

The Georgia Public Service Commission, facing nearly 10 GW of projected new large-load demand, told FERC that its model allows it to process and approve large-load interconnections more efficiently than a federal framework would. Georgia pointed to recent rule changes requiring large-load customers over 100 MW to cover their cost of service, long-term contracting rules, and an active capacity-certification proceeding as evidence that it has tools in place to ensure timely and reliable interconnection. The PSC said it would continue to collaborate on shared goals “without the need for further Federal action in Georgia.”

The North Carolina Utilities Commission said the ANOPR risks redefining portions of retail service connections as FERC-jurisdictional by relying on the seven-factor test to classify facilities. The NCUC stressed that it has not joined a wholesale market and has already taken steps — including semiannual large-load reporting and technical conferences — to integrate data centers and industrial loads into state resource planning. It urged FERC to “affirmatively preserve” state authority over bundled retail service and local distribution.

Industry stakeholders

NRG Energy filed a detailed critique, supporting the ANOPR’s goals but warning that the proposal could worsen queue backlogs if not revised. NRG urged FERC to drop the 20 MW floor, adopt a 230-kV rebuttable presumption for federal jurisdiction, require open-season auctions to allocate interconnection capacity; and ensure large loads already in state queues can remain under those rules.

The US Chamber of Commerce echoed concerns about federal overreach and urged FERC to limit any rule to regions where processes are failing. It recommended raising the large-load threshold to 75–100 MW, creating clearer cost-allocation rules, and ensuring the ANOPR does not inadvertently slow down existing projects.