PJM flagged too large to function

PJM is the grid operator for the biggest power market in the US. It keeps electricity moving across 13 states and DC, and it decides a lot about who gets to connect new power plants and big new loads. That makes its governance sound like inside baseball — but it isn’t. On May 12 in Baltimore, FERC Chair Laura Swett said out loud what a lot of developers, utilities, and governors have been implying for months: PJM may have gotten so big and so consensus-bound that it struggles to make decisions when speed actually matters. ### What exactly happened? Swett used PJM’s annual meeting to deliver a pretty direct warning. She said the organization may be “too large to function” effectively, and she tied that concern to the way PJM handles governance, stakeholder fights, and urgent system needs. She also said FERC will hold a technical conference on July 23 to figure out where PJM’s stakeholder process is deadlocking and what reforms are actionable. (ferc.gov) ### Why is PJM such a hard case? Because PJM is not one state, one regulator, or one utility model. It spans 13 states plus DC, serves about 67 million people, and sits across places with very different politics, utility structures, and market rules. Some states still rely on vertically integrated utilities. Others lean on competitive markets. That diversity used to be part of PJM’s strength. But Swett’s point was that the same scale now makes it harder to move decisively. (rtoinsider.com) ### Why does “too big” matter now? Because load growth is no longer theoretical. Data centers are pushing huge new power demand into PJM territory, and the federal government is already working on separate large-load interconnection rules because the pressure is so intense. Swett framed PJM as the place where national reliability, industrial policy, and the AI buildout are colliding. If PJM cannot process new generation and new load in a timely way, the bottleneck stops being abstract governance and starts becoming a real economic constraint. (ferc.gov) ### What is broken in the process? The complaint is not just that PJM moves slowly. It is that the process can get stuck exactly where urgency should override procedural drift. Swett said the stakeholder process is too slow where it must be fast, too opaque where it must be transparent, and too vulnerable to veto points when action is needed. Basically, PJM was built to balance competing interests. The catch is that balance can turn into paralysis when everyone has enough leverage to block but not enough responsibility to solve. (bloomberg.com) ### How does the interconnection queue fit in? This is where the story gets practical for developers and contractors. PJM had effectively frozen new generation queue intake while it worked through a huge backlog, and only reopened the queue this spring for the first time since 2022. The whole point of the reform was faster, more predictable studies. But Swett’s warning is that queue mechanics are only part of the problem. If governance remains clogged, then “reformed” timelines can still slip once projects hit contentious decisions, study disputes, or cost-allocation fights. (rtoinsider.com) ### Why are utilities and states suddenly louder? Because confidence in PJM has been slipping. RTO Insider noted that Swett said there is a real crisis of confidence, and she said she could not blame a major utility for considering whether to leave. That was a clear nod to AEP, whose CEO said the company is assessing its options around PJM and SPP after frustrations over bringing new load online. Governors have also been pushing for governance reform, including a bigger formal role for states in the process. (advancedenergyunited.org) ### What does this mean for projects on the ground? It means interconnection milestones look less like fixed dates and more like contingent dates. For EPCs, developers, and large-load customers, that changes how you underwrite schedule risk. A study window on paper is one thing. A study outcome that survives stakeholder conflict, board action, and regulatory scrutiny is another. The analogy is simple — the queue is no longer just a line to stand in; it is a maze, and governance determines how many locked doors are inside it. (rtoinsider.com) ### Bottom line Swett did not announce a breakup of PJM or an immediate rule change. But she did something almost as important — she turned a long-running industry complaint into an explicit federal warning. If that warning sticks, PJM governance stops being a niche process story and becomes a core delivery risk for generation, transmission, and data-center buildouts. (ferc.gov)