FERC misses DOE-ordered April 30 deadline on large-load interconnection Docket RM26-4-000 — issues Intent to Act order committing to June 2026 action

Opening

On April 16, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued an “Order Regarding Intent to Act” in Docket No. RM26-4-000, announcing it would take action on large-load interconnection reform by the end of June 2026 — two weeks before the April 30, 2026 deadline that Energy Secretary Chris Wright had ordered FERC to meet. The April 30 deadline had been imposed by Wright’s October 23, 2025 directive invoking rare DOE-over-FERC authority. FERC announced it would miss the deadline and self-extended by approximately two months.

What Happened / Key Facts

The missed deadline: Wright’s October 23, 2025 directive letter ordered FERC to take “final action” on Docket RM26-4-000 “no later than April 30, 2026.” On April 16, 2026 — two weeks before that deadline — FERC issued an Order Regarding Intent to Act that explicitly committed only to a “by the end of June 2026” action date, not to meeting the April 30 date. No public commissioner statement addressed the missed deadline directly. FERC has not explained the extension relative to the DOE directive’s explicit calendar requirement.

The April 16 Order’s substance: The Order Regarding Intent to Act does not adopt new rules. It:

• Acknowledges that “unprecedented growth in large loads is creating reliability, cost allocation and timing challenges” for the transmission system
• States FERC’s June 2026 action will “translate the issues identified in the ANOPR and the record into standards for processing large-load interconnection requests”
• Commits FERC to addressing interconnection challenges in a manner that is “quick, efficient and legally durable”
• Notes that FERC reviewed “over 3,500 pages of public comments” and held “numerous stakeholder meetings” before issuing the intent order
• Signals that Commission-led generic reforms will not discourage utilities from filing under Federal Power Act sections 205 and 206 on their own

Chairman Swett’s statement: FERC Chairman Laura V. Swett stated: “Our nation stands at a pivotal moment as we face rapid growth in demand from data centers and other large-scale consumers that are reshaping our transmission landscape.” The statement does not address the April 30 deadline or DOE authority.

No commissioner dissents documented: Available records through June 11, 2026 do not reveal any FERC commissioner dissent on independence grounds in connection with RM26-4-000. FERC’s procedural cooperation — opening the docket within a week of Wright’s October 2025 directive and now committing (if late) to a June 2026 action — is consistent with the pattern of mutual operational submission documented in captured-x-operational-signature-incoherence-stabilized-by-mutual-submission.

Expected form of June 2026 action: As of June 11, 2026, FERC had not yet issued its June 2026 action. Law firm analyses indicate the action is expected to take the form of a NOPR (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) rather than a final rule — translating the ANOPR’s questions into proposed standards — though a direct final rule is not excluded. Key open questions the forthcoming action must resolve:

1. Federal vs. state jurisdiction boundary: Whether FERC asserts expanded authority over load-side interconnection that historically has been state-regulated
2. Cost allocation: Whether large loads pay the full cost of grid upgrades needed for their interconnection (as the ANOPR proposed) or whether costs are socialized onto existing ratepayers
3. Threshold definition: Whether the 20 MW threshold from the ANOPR is retained, raised, or lowered; crypto miners at the 20 MW threshold vs. hyperscale AI datacenters at 100+ MW would be treated differently under different thresholds

Why This Event Matters

The April 30 deadline was a constitutional-design edge case made operational — and then FERC slipped it. The Wright directive’s legal theory was that the DOE Secretary could use rarely-invoked statutory authority under the Department of Energy Organization Act to dictate FERC’s docket priorities and timeline. FERC’s opening of RM26-4-000 within a week (October 27, 2025) confirmed that it would comply with the directive’s priority. But FERC declining to meet the April 30 deadline — and self-extending by two months without formally contesting the directive’s authority — occupies a third doctrinal position: neither defiance of DOE authority nor full submission to its timeline. FERC is operating inside the directive’s policy scope while retaining calendar discretion.

Structural implication for the five-lever package: The datacenter-permitting deregulation package documented in datacenter-permitting-deregulation-2025 described Lever 4 as having a hard April 30 deadline. The missed deadline means Lever 4 (FERC interconnection reform) remains pending final action as of June 11, 2026, rather than closed. The package’s interconnection-reform lever is not yet operative in binding rule form. This is structurally significant for the buildout timeline: developers in PJM, MISO, and CAISO interconnection queues cannot rely on FERC’s reformed standards yet because no final rule exists. The June 2026 action, when it issues, will likely take the form of proposed rules (NOPR) requiring a further comment-and-finalize cycle, extending the effective implementation date further still.

The “legally durable” framing signals cost-allocation caution: FERC’s April 16 order language — “quick, efficient and legally durable” — is code for awareness that FERC interconnection orders have been successfully challenged in federal circuit courts before. A NOPR route (rather than a final rule) is the more legally defensible path because it allows a full comment period before finalization, making the eventual rule harder to challenge as arbitrary and capricious under the APA.

Broader Context

The missed April 30 deadline sits within a pattern. DOE’s October 23, 2025 directive to FERC was itself evidence that the White House concluded FERC’s ordinary rulemaking timeline was too slow. FERC then needed six months to get from directive to Intent-to-Act, and another two-plus months to expected June action. Even if FERC issues its June 2026 action on schedule, the total timeline from DOE directive to operative rule will be at least eight months — longer than the original April 30 six-month target, and likely at least twelve months when the NOPR-to-final-rule cycle completes. The “urgency” framing of the Wright directive does not appear to have materially compressed FERC’s actual timeline.

The ANOPR generated “over 3,500 pages” of public comments — a signal that ratepayer advocates, state regulators, environmental groups, and industry filers each contested different aspects of the proposed reforms. The volume and diversity of the record is one reason the June 2026 action is expected to be a NOPR rather than a final rule: resolving 3,500 pages of contested comments in a final rule without a further opportunity to respond would be procedurally vulnerable.

Research Gaps

• Whether FERC issues its June 2026 action by June 30, 2026 — and whether it is a NOPR or a final rule
• Specific provisions of the June 2026 FERC action: cost-allocation terms, threshold definition, curtailment requirements, study timeline compression
• Whether any FERC commissioner dissents on independence grounds when the June 2026 order issues
• Whether DOE Secretary Wright formally responds to FERC’s failure to meet the April 30 deadline — any follow-up directive or public statement
• Comment record in RM26-4-000 — coalition of filers, specific positions of PJM, MISO, ratepayer advocates, state AGs, datacenter industry

Related Entries

• 2025-10-23–doe-directs-ferc-anopr-large-load-interconnection
• 2025-07-23–eo-accelerating-federal-permitting-data-center-infrastructure
• 2025-06-20–texas-sb-6-large-load-interconnection-signed
• datacenter-permitting-deregulation-2025
• wright-chris
• epic-inv6-energy-systems-convergent-demand-shock