jain.com — data centers, connectivity and security, analyzed daily

Tag: behind-the-meter

  • Oklo vs. PJM: Inside the FERC Complaint Over Its Queue Removal

    Oklo vs. PJM: Inside the FERC Complaint Over Its Queue Removal

    TL;DR · 30-second read

    The Short Version

    Oklo, a company developing small nuclear reactors to power data centers, says the organisation that runs the electricity grid across much of the eastern United States removed its project from the waiting list for a grid connection.

    Oklo has asked federal energy regulators in Washington to step in and reverse that decision.

    Why it matters: the computing sites behind artificial intelligence need huge amounts of round-the-clock electricity, and new nuclear plants are one proposed answer. They only work if they can get into the queue for a grid connection and stay there.

    RTO Insider reported that advanced nuclear developer Oklo has filed a complaint at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) after PJM Interconnection, the grid operator for 13 mid-Atlantic and Midwestern states plus the District of Columbia, removed one of Oklo’s projects from its interconnection queue — the formal waiting list every new power plant must pass through before it can connect to the transmission system.

    The complaint puts a federal regulator, rather than the grid operator, in charge of deciding whether the removal was consistent with PJM’s tariff. For Oklo, a pre-revenue company whose business model is selling electricity from reactors it owns and operates, queue standing is not a paperwork detail: it is the gate between a site plan and a saleable megawatt.

    Executive Summary

    The dispute is narrow on its face and consequential underneath. Interconnection queues were designed for conventional generators — gas plants, wind farms, solar arrays — that submit a request, hold a position, fund studies and reach commercial operation on a broadly predictable schedule. Advanced nuclear developers arrive with a different profile: long federal licensing timelines, first-of-a-kind designs, and in many cases a single named data center customer rather than a plan to sell into the wholesale market.

    That mismatch is what makes the filing worth watching. If a queue administrator can remove an advanced nuclear project because it does not fit the milestones a queue was built to enforce, the practical route to nuclear-powered computing narrows considerably. If FERC finds the removal was inconsistent with the tariff, the ruling becomes a reference point for every reactor developer negotiating with a regional grid operator.

    Neither outcome is guaranteed, and complaints of this kind are frequently resolved on procedural grounds that decide little beyond the case at hand. But the question underneath — how a grid built around large central generators accommodates purpose-built reactors serving concentrated digital load — is now in front of the regulator that will ultimately have to answer it.

    The Queue Is the Real Bottleneck

    An interconnection queue is a waiting list with legal force. Before any generator can deliver power onto the transmission grid, the grid operator must study how that injection affects voltage, stability and congestion, and determine what network upgrades the project must pay for. Position in the queue determines study order, cost allocation and, in practice, whether a project reaches commercial operation this decade or the next.

    PJM’s queue has been among the most congested in the country. The operator has moved from a first-come, first-served process to a cycle-based approach that studies projects in clusters, tightened financial and site-control requirements, and worked through a large backlog of pending requests — all while facing the fastest load growth its territory has seen in a generation, much of it from data centers. Rules that screen out speculative applications are the direct consequence of that congestion, and they were not written with first-of-a-kind reactors in mind.

    The tension is structural rather than adversarial. A queue administrator enforcing readiness milestones is doing what stakeholders asked for. A nuclear developer whose regulatory path runs through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on a schedule it does not control will struggle to demonstrate readiness on a timetable calibrated to combined-cycle gas.

    Behind the Meter, In Front of the Regulator

    Much of the appeal of pairing reactors with data centers rests on co-location: siting generation next to the load so power flows directly to the customer rather than across the public grid. In industry shorthand this is ‘behind the meter’. It promises speed, because it appears to avoid the transmission upgrades that make grid connection slow, and it promises firm, carbon-free supply, which is what large computing operators say they want.

    The regulatory reality has proven less accommodating. FERC’s 2024 rejection of an amended interconnection agreement covering an expanded co-located data center at the Susquehanna nuclear plant in Pennsylvania established that co-location is not a way around the grid operator; it is a matter the grid operator and the federal regulator both get to weigh in on. The unresolved questions — who pays for the transmission service a co-located load still relies on, what happens when the on-site generator trips, whether the arrangement shifts costs to other ratepayers — are why these arrangements keep arriving at FERC rather than being settled bilaterally.

    Oklo’s complaint lands in that context. Whatever its specific merits, it asks the same underlying question the co-location docket asks: what obligations attach to generation built for one customer, and who decides.

    What a Complaint Actually Buys

    Filing at FERC gives Oklo a forum, a public record and a decision-maker with authority over PJM’s tariff. It also imposes costs. Complaint proceedings invite answers from the respondent and interventions from utilities, states, consumer advocates and rival developers; they can take months; and they can end in an order that resolves the immediate dispute without establishing the broader principle the filer wanted. For a company whose valuation rests substantially on the credibility of its development pipeline, a public dispute over queue standing is a signal customers and investors will read closely in both directions — as evidence of a real project worth fighting for, or as evidence that the path to power delivery is less settled than a pipeline chart suggests.

    The wider audience is everyone else building this trade. Other advanced nuclear developers, hyperscale operators evaluating PJM sites, and independent power producers weighing co-located deals all need to know whether queue rules will bend to accommodate long-lead-time nuclear or whether nuclear will have to bend to the queue. An adverse ruling would push more projects toward markets and utilities outside PJM’s footprint, or toward structures that keep the reactor entirely off the transmission system. A favourable one would not shorten Nuclear Regulatory Commission timelines, but it would remove one source of uncertainty from an already long list.

    The measured reading is that this case is a data point, not a verdict. No reactor gets built faster because of a FERC docket, and no data center gets powered by a queue position. What a ruling can do is tell the next developer what the rules are before it spends the money.

    Background

    Oklo Inc. is a US advanced nuclear developer that listed publicly through a merger with a special-purpose acquisition company in 2024 and trades on the New York Stock Exchange. Its Aurora design is a small fast reactor intended to be deployed in clusters, and its commercial model differs from traditional vendors: rather than selling reactors to utilities, Oklo intends to build, own and operate plants and sell the electricity under long-term contracts. That model makes the company a market participant subject to grid interconnection rules, not merely an equipment supplier. Its licensing path has been iterative — an earlier application was denied without prejudice in 2022 — and no Oklo plant is yet in commercial operation.

    PJM, meanwhile, has spent several years managing an interconnection queue overwhelmed by requests while facing demand growth driven substantially by data centers in Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania. It replaced its serial queue process with a cluster-based one, added financial and site-control requirements to filter speculative applications, and has seen capacity prices climb sharply as supply retirements outpaced new entry. Those two trajectories — a nuclear developer that needs a grid position and a grid operator rationing them — are what meet in this complaint.

    Source: Oklo Files FERC Complaint After PJM Removes Project from Interconnection Queue — RTO Insider’s report that advanced nuclear developer Oklo has taken PJM’s removal of its project from the interconnection queue to federal energy regulators.

  • Rystad: Data-Center Fuel Cell Investment to Grow Tenfold to $30B by 2030

    Rystad: Data-Center Fuel Cell Investment to Grow Tenfold to $30B by 2030

    Research firm Rystad Energy projects that investment in fuel cells by data-center operators will grow roughly tenfold, reaching $30 billion by 2030, according to a report published June 26, 2026. The forecast points to on-site power generation moving from a niche backup strategy to a mainstream way of energizing new data-center capacity as connections to the electric grid grow slower and harder to secure.

    Executive Summary

    Rystad Energy, a Norway-based energy research and intelligence firm, has put a headline number on a trend the data-center industry has been living with for several years: when the grid cannot deliver power on the timeline a project needs, operators increasingly buy their own generation. Its new forecast calls for data-center fuel cell investment to grow tenfold by 2030, reaching $30 billion — a figure that implies today’s spending is on the order of a few billion dollars a year.

    Fuel cells convert a fuel — most commonly natural gas today, potentially hydrogen in the future — directly into electricity through an electrochemical reaction rather than combustion. That gives them attractive properties for data centers: they can be deployed in modular blocks at the site, run continuously as primary power rather than just backup, and generally face lighter air-permitting burdens than combustion turbines or diesel generators. A tenfold growth call, if it materializes, would make fuel cells one of the fastest-growing categories of behind-the-meter power — generation installed on the customer’s side of the utility connection — in the broader AI-infrastructure buildout.

    The Grid Queue Is the Real Story

    The most important context for this forecast is not the fuel cell itself but the waiting line in front of it. In many major data-center markets, utilities and grid operators have quoted multi-year waits for large new interconnections — the formal process of hooking a big load up to the transmission system. For an AI data center whose revenue depends on being energized quickly, a delay of several years is often more costly than paying a premium for on-site generation. That inversion of economics — time-to-power mattering more than cost-per-megawatt-hour — is what turns a niche technology into a $30 billion market forecast.

    Fuel cells are one of several answers to that problem, alongside gas turbines, reciprocating engines, and eventually small modular nuclear reactors. Their particular appeal is speed and siting flexibility: modular units can be added in increments as a campus grows, they operate quietly with no combustion exhaust plume, and in many jurisdictions they clear environmental permitting faster than combustion alternatives. For operators, that can compress the gap between breaking ground and serving customers.

    What Tenfold Growth Would Actually Require

    Growing an equipment market tenfold in roughly four years is not just a demand question — it is a manufacturing and supply-chain question. Fuel cell systems depend on specialized components and materials, and stepping up output by an order of magnitude means new factory capacity, expanded supplier networks, and trained installation and service workforces. The release headline does not indicate whether Rystad’s forecast is constrained by manufacturing capacity or is a pure demand-side projection, and that distinction matters a great deal for whether the number is achievable.

    The fuel supply side deserves equal scrutiny. Most commercially deployed data-center fuel cells today run on natural gas, which means large deployments need pipeline capacity and gas contracts — their own version of an interconnection queue. Operators are effectively trading one infrastructure dependency for another. That trade often still makes sense, because gas infrastructure can frequently be expanded faster than high-voltage transmission, but it is not a free pass around the physical world.

    Winners, Losers, and the Emissions Question

    If the forecast is directionally right, the clearest beneficiaries are fuel cell manufacturers and the developers who package on-site generation into ready-to-run power solutions for data centers, along with gas utilities that supply the fuel. Traditional electric utilities face a more nuanced picture: behind-the-meter generation can relieve pressure on constrained grids, but it also diverts what would have been decades of steady load growth — and the revenue that comes with it — away from the regulated system.

    The environmental ledger is genuinely mixed and worth stating plainly. Natural gas fuel cells emit carbon dioxide, though generally with higher electrical efficiency and far lower local air pollutants than combustion generation. Advocates point to a future switch to hydrogen as a path to low-carbon operation; skeptics note that low-carbon hydrogen remains scarce and expensive. Buyers and communities evaluating these projects should ask which fuel is actually contracted today, not which fuel is possible in principle.

    A Forecast Is a Scenario, Not a Commitment

    It is worth being clear about what a research-firm projection is: a modeled scenario built on assumptions about data-center demand, grid-connection timelines, technology costs, and competing options. Rystad is a well-established energy intelligence firm, but the headline figure arrives without published methodology in the source at hand. If AI capacity growth slows, if utilities accelerate interconnections, or if gas turbine supply loosens, the fuel cell number could land well short of $30 billion. Conversely, if grid queues lengthen further, it could prove conservative. The forecast is best read as a signal about the direction and seriousness of the on-site power trend, not as a precise measurement of the future.

    Background

    Data-center electricity demand has surged with the AI buildout, and in several major markets the ability to get grid power — not land or capital — has become the binding constraint on new capacity. That has pushed operators toward on-site generation of many kinds, from gas turbines to fuel cells, and made “time to power” a core competitive metric. Fuel cells entered the data-center world primarily as clean backup and supplemental power, with a small number of vendors building a commercial track record over the past decade; the shift Rystad describes is their promotion to primary, at-scale power for new facilities.

    Rystad Energy, founded in Oslo in 2004, built its reputation on oil and gas market intelligence and has since expanded into power, renewables, and energy-transition research, making it one of the more frequently cited independent forecasters in the energy sector.

    Source: Fuel cell investment by data centers set to grow tenfold, reaching $30 billion by 2030 — Rystad Energy, a research forecast on data-center on-site power published June 26, 2026, via Google News.

  • Offshore Nuclear Barges Eye California Ports and Data Centers

    Offshore Nuclear Barges Eye California Ports and Data Centers

    A concept for floating, offshore nuclear power barges is being pitched as a way to supply electricity to California ports and data centers, with proponents arguing that siting reactors in federal waters could avoid the state’s long-standing prohibition on new onshore nuclear plants. Fortune reported the proposal on June 16, 2026.

    Executive Summary

    The pitch pairs two trends: a resurgent interest in small, modular nuclear reactors and an acute shortage of firm, carbon-free power for AI-era data centers and electrified ports. By mounting reactors on barges moored offshore, developers argue they can deliver power directly to coastal customers behind the meter — meaning the electricity flows to the buyer without traversing the public grid — while operating under federal rather than state jurisdiction.

    The stakes are significant for California, where data center operators and port electrification programs are competing for the same constrained grid capacity, and where the state’s 1976 moratorium on new nuclear construction has effectively frozen a category of firm, low-carbon generation. Whether an offshore barge genuinely sits outside that moratorium — legally, politically, and practically — is the central question the proposal raises.

    Why Offshore, and Why Now

    The appeal is straightforward on paper. California data center demand is rising with generative AI workloads, and the state’s largest ports — Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Oakland — are under pressure to electrify cargo handling and shore power for docked ships. Both need round-the-clock electricity that solar and wind alone cannot provide without significant storage. A barge-mounted reactor delivered to a mooring can, in principle, be built in a shipyard, towed into place, and connected to a single large customer, compressing the multi-year permitting and construction timelines that plague land-based projects.

    Offshore siting also reframes the political map. State moratoria on new nuclear plants apply on land; federal waters begin three nautical miles from shore in most of California. A vessel-based reactor could plausibly be regulated primarily by federal agencies — the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and, for a marine platform, the Coast Guard — rather than the state. That is the crux of the sidestep argument, and it will be tested by lawyers long before it is tested by engineers.

    The Behind-the-Meter Economics

    Behind-the-meter power arrangements let a generator sell electricity directly to a co-located customer, bypassing utility tariffs and, often, transmission queues that now stretch years. For hyperscale data center operators, that shortcut has become the single most valuable feature of any new generation project, which is why they have signed deals for restarted nuclear plants and are exploring small modular reactors on their own campuses. An offshore barge extends the same logic to sites that lack the land for on-site generation.

    The economics still have to close. Marine nuclear platforms carry costs that land plants do not: marinization of equipment, mooring and undersea cable systems, corrosion management, and specialized crews. They also inherit the industry’s chronic problem — first-of-a-kind small reactors have consistently come in above their initial cost estimates. Whether the shipyard-build efficiencies proponents cite can offset those headwinds is unproven at commercial scale.

    Regulation, Siting, and the Politics of a Workaround

    Framing a project as a jurisdictional workaround invites the jurisdiction being worked around to push back. California has other levers even if the reactor sits in federal waters: the California Coastal Commission reviews activities affecting the coastal zone, cable landings require state and local permits, and the electricity buyer on shore is a regulated entity. A project marketed primarily as a way to avoid state law is likely to draw sharper scrutiny than one that engages the state on its merits.

    There are also legitimate questions to ask of critics as well as proponents. Opposition to nuclear in California has historically blended safety, seismic, and waste concerns with broader anti-industrial sentiment, and the coalition that upheld the 1976 moratorium is not monolithic. A fair debate requires pressing both sides: proponents on safety, security, and decommissioning of a marine reactor; opponents on what alternative firm, low-carbon supply they propose for the same coastal loads on the same timeline.

    Background

    California enacted its moratorium on new nuclear construction in 1976, tying future approvals to a federal solution for high-level radioactive waste that has not materialized. The state’s last operating commercial nuclear plant, Diablo Canyon, was scheduled to retire but received a life extension amid grid reliability concerns. Meanwhile, AI-driven data center demand and port electrification are straining coastal grid capacity.

    Interest in small modular reactors and factory-built nuclear designs has revived globally, with hyperscale technology companies signing power deals for restarted plants and exploring on-site reactors. Marine nuclear propulsion has decades of naval history, and Russia has operated a civilian floating nuclear plant since 2020, but no comparable commercial offshore reactor has been deployed in U.S. waters.

    Source: Offshore nuclear barges could power ports and data centers—starting with California, where nuclear is banned — Fortune reports on a proposal to moor small reactors offshore to serve California ports and data centers.