Exelon Asks FERC to Scrap PJM's Three-Year Capacity Auction
What Happened
Exelon filed a complaint with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on November 3, 2026 (Docket No. EL27-11-000), asking FERC to find that PJM's three-year-ahead capacity auction is no longer just and reasonable — and to replace it with a prompt auction held about two months before each delivery year, starting with the 2030/31 delivery year.
Under PJM's Reliability Pricing Model, the Base Residual Auction buys capacity three years before it is needed. Exelon's complaint says that timeline no longer works. The core argument: the auction locks in costs based on load forecasts — dominated now by data-center projections — that may never materialize. According to the affidavit supporting the complaint, load adjustments now equal 18.4% of PJM's 2030 summer peak forecast. In other words, nearly one-fifth of the load the auction is sized to serve is forecast, not firm.
Exelon asked FERC for fast-track treatment, with a ruling by January 31, 2027, and a refund effective date of January 1, 2027. If granted, the 2030/31 Base Residual Auction — currently scheduled for May 2027 — would move to approximately March 2030.
PJM answered on November 4. It opposed fast-track processing and asked until December 21, 2026 to answer the complaint on the merits. PJM's filing contests only the fast-track request; it does not yet address the merits of Exelon's case. FERC has not ruled on either the fast-track request or the extension. FirstEnergy intervened in the docket on November 9.
Two limits worth noting: Exelon's proposal would not apply to the December 2026 Base Residual Auction for the 2029/30 delivery year, and it would not touch the Reliability Backstop Procurement — the separate, suspended process covering the 2028/29 shortfall. This is a fight about the auction calendar going forward, not about the backstop.
Why It Matters
Capacity costs are a line item every commercial buyer in PJM pays, whether they see it broken out or not. When the auction buys capacity three years out against forecasts that overstate actual load, customers pay for megawatts that never show up. Exelon's case is that the data-center wave made that problem too big to ignore: forecasts swing by thousands of megawatts between vintages, and a three-year commitment turns a forecasting miss into a multi-year bill.
The timing is not accidental. FERC itself, in its September 29 order on the backstop procurement, wrote that PJM's ordinary capacity market "has failed to keep pace with the unprecedented influx of large load into the PJM Region." Exelon's complaint takes the next step — arguing the forward auction structure itself, not just one year's outcome, is the problem.
A prompt auction would price capacity against load that is far closer to real. That cuts both ways: if load growth materializes, prices could reflect tighter conditions with less lead time for new supply. But the direction of Exelon's argument is clear — pay for what is actually coming, not for what a three-year-old forecast assumed.
What It Means for Commercial Buyers
For New Jersey buyers — and anyone else buying power inside PJM — this docket is worth watching closely. If FERC agrees, capacity costs from 2030/31 onward would be set months, not years, ahead of delivery. That changes the planning horizon for contract timing: the capacity component of a supply price would be known much closer to the delivery period, and the risk of paying for phantom load would shrink.
It does not change anything for Massachusetts buyers. Massachusetts sits in ISO New England, not PJM, and this complaint is PJM-only. In fact, FERC has already found prompt auction schedules just and reasonable in ISO-NE — a point Exelon itself makes in the filing.
For now, nothing has changed. No relief has been granted, no comment deadline has been set, and the December 2026 auction for 2029/30 proceeds as scheduled. The near-term watchpoints are FERC's decisions on fast-track treatment and on PJM's request for more time, followed by PJM's answer on the merits by December 21 if the extension is granted.
PEM Perspective
The capacity market was built for a world where load grew slowly and predictably. That world is gone. When nearly a fifth of a peak forecast is adjustments layered on top of a base forecast, a three-year forward commitment is a bet on a spreadsheet — and commercial buyers are the ones paying when the bet is wrong.
A prompt auction is not a silver bullet. Shorter lead times mean less room for new generation to respond to a tight signal, and the transition will take years to work through. But the direction is right: price capacity against the load that is actually arriving.
For buyers, the practical takeaway is the same as it has been all year — watch the capacity line, not just the energy line, when you evaluate a contract. In PJM, capacity is where the forecast risk lives now.
We will track this docket and the backstop proceeding together, and flag anything that changes the cost outlook for New Jersey buyers.
Winter is almost here...
Would you like a review of your facility's Winter Energy strategy? We are here to help!
Comments