daily · Grid & Utilities

FERC commissioner questions Duke large-load safeguards in October 13 dissent

Chang argues that 15-year payment commitments lack matching financial security. Her dissent describes a cost-shifting risk, not a measured household bill increase.

By Greener Numbers Editorial Team · Published October 13, 2026 · Updated 10/13/2026

FERC Commissioner Judy Chang published a dissent on October 13, 2026, in Duke Energy Carolinas proceedings ER26-2691-000 and ER26-2691-001. The statement says the Commission accepted revisions to Duke's network transmission service agreement. Chang argues that Duke had not shown its customer-protection proposal was just and reasonable.

The framework addresses transmission service requests of 100 megawatts or more. It establishes a 15-year service obligation and a minimum revenue contribution equal to 75 percent of the scheduled megawatt load. Load-serving entities pay a shortfall amount if their actual contribution falls below the specified minimum.

Chang supports the concept of long-term payment commitments but questions the security backing them. She says generally applicable provisions appear to provide roughly one month, or at most five months, of transmission revenues behind a 15-year obligation. Her concern is what happens if a customer defaults and cannot meet its payments.

She also questions the basis for the 75 percent threshold. The dissent says Duke did not adequately explain that figure. Chang would have rejected the filing with guidance to strengthen the security requirements and better support the minimum contribution, rather than accept the proposal on the existing record.

The statement raises separate concerns about rolling network-upgrade costs into general transmission rates and reporting individual agreements through Electronic Quarterly Reports. Chang says that process gives other customers too little timely information to assess a project's costs before it is built. She acknowledges that the treatment follows existing Commission precedent.

Limits: this is an individual commissioner's dissent, not a reversal of the accepted tariff or proof that a household bill has increased. It describes possible cost shifts if large loads fail to materialize or payments fail. The source does not establish a specific residential dollar impact or show that every large customer is an AI data center.

Official source: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ↗