The DOE has approved keeping the 760 MW Eddystone coal-fired power plant online longer to offset rising PJM data center loads and delayed generation retirements.
The Department of Energy (DOE) has ordered PJM Interconnection and Constellation Energy to keep 760 MW of generation at Pennsylvania’s Eddystone Generating Station available to operate through Nov. 20, extending an emergency measure as the regional grid faces rising electricity demand and a wave of generator retirements. The DOE’s reliability analysis accounts for roughly 25 GW of projected PJM load growth, including 15 GW from data centers, against approximately 17 GW of announced fossil-fuel retirements.
Issued on Aug. 21 under Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act, the order requires PJM to economically dispatch Eddystone Units 3 and 4 when needed, while explicitly stating that the units “shall not be considered a capacity resource.” Each unit generates 380 MW and can operate on natural gas or oil. Originally scheduled to retire on May 31, 2025, the units have been repeatedly directed by the DOE to remain available.
“The core problem is timing: load is arriving faster than replacement generation, and transmission can become executable,” said Neil Osnato, founder of Persistence Analytics Group.
DOE modeling estimates approximately 430 loss-of-load hours under average weather conditions, rising to 1,052 hours under worst-case scenarios with a maximum unserved load of roughly 21.3 GW. While these figures represent stress scenarios rather than definitive forecasts, they underscore why the DOE views the convergence of rapid load growth and accelerating retirements as a critical reliability concern.
Darryl Lawrence, Pennsylvania’s consumer advocate and head of the state’s Office of Consumer Advocate, noted that PJM’s reliability posture has shifted dramatically after decades of maintaining ample reserve margins. “During extreme weather conditions, PJM’s system is fragile,” Lawrence said. “And this is not something that we’ve seen in my time in the business, which is 20-plus years.”
The department’s order highlights a “timing mismatch between resource retirements, load growth and the pace of new generation entry.” Developing new generation and transmission infrastructure typically takes years, whereas data center projects can introduce hundreds of megawatts of localized demand almost overnight. Lawrence emphasized that the recent influx of large-scale data centers has fundamentally altered the assumptions PJM has relied upon for decades. “We haven’t seen this kind of forecasted demand in the PJM system since the days when they were building steel mills,” he said.
The Aug. 21 directive marks the sixth DOE intervention to extend or preserve Eddystone’s operational status since its planned 2025 retirement. According to Lawrence, these repeated emergency measures indicate that PJM’s traditional mechanisms, which functioned reliably for decades, are now struggling to accommodate unprecedented demand projections.
Elizabeth Whitney, managing principal at Meguire Whitney, observed that the recurring invocation of Section 202(c) signals a broader shift in federal approaches to energy emergencies. Historically, the authority served as a short-term reliability tool, but the Trump administration’s declaration of a national energy emergency has established a wider framework for its repeated application. “If there is a statutory benefit to being in an emergency situation, then there’s going to be political pressure to find an emergency to justify that use,” Whitney told Data Center Knowledge.
Whitney cautioned that repeated reliance on emergency authority raises structural questions about how long such measures can persist before becoming de facto components of standard resource planning. While the orders may be justified, their frequency blurs the line between temporary crisis management and long-term grid strategy.
Although the DOE order mandates economic dispatch to minimize ratepayer costs, it leaves unresolved the fundamental question of who will ultimately foot the bill for keeping retiring generation online. Whitney noted that these costs generally flow through wholesale markets, ultimately impacting electricity customers. This dynamic prompts broader discussions about whether large consumers driving the need for additional reliability resources should shoulder a greater share of those expenses.
In Pennsylvania, the large-load tariff employs a ‘but for’ test: if infrastructure would not be built without a specific customer, that customer should bear the associated costs. Applying this principle to Eddystone, however, proves complex. Because electricity cannot be traced to a specific generating unit or individual data center, establishing a direct financial link between a large load and the expense of preserving a retiring plant remains difficult.
PJM’s recent large-load reforms may alter the conditions under which future data centers interconnect with the grid, but they do not resolve the immediate challenge of generation already slated for decommissioning. “Eddystone addresses the supply side of an existing timing gap,” Osnato explained. “PJM’s large-load reforms address the demand-entry side of the future gap.” The two challenges are interconnected but operate on entirely different timelines.
Uncertainty surrounding future data center demand further complicates the reliability landscape. The 15 GW of data-center load modeled by the DOE represents 60% of the total 25 GW of projected PJM load growth. Yet, unlike a generator retirement, which is a relatively fixed event, this projected demand lacks certainty regarding both timing and final scale. “A generator retirement is relatively binary. A 15 GW data-center forecast is not,” Osnato said.
Lawrence highlighted another forecasting complication: the same prospective data center project often appears across multiple utility forecasts while developers negotiate service agreements. For instance, a developer might initially engage with PECO before approaching PPL, leading both utilities to include the prospective load in their respective models despite the project ultimately connecting to only one system. “We potentially have a double-counting problem,” Lawrence warned.
Whitney added that physical power constraints could further distort projections as developers adjust their expansion plans to secure adequate electricity. “I don’t know that we can really reliably trust any modeling right now that is even three to five years out,” she said.
This forecasting uncertainty does not negate the reality of projected demand, but it does force grid planners to reconsider how much weight to place on long-term, high-load projections when those assumptions directly influence decisions to delay generation retirements. “If forecast large-load growth is consequential enough to justify preventing physical generation from retiring, then the durability of that demand assumption becomes part of the reliability question itself,” Osnato noted.
The DOE’s order does not single out data centers as the sole driver for preserving Eddystone. Instead, its analysis reflects the cumulative impact of aggregate load growth, accelerated generator retirements, and the slow pace at which new resources can come online. PJM was asked for comment on the order and its broader grid implications; the publication will update the report with the operator’s response.
Ultimately, Whitney stressed that the issue extends far beyond Eddystone or PJM’s immediate reliability needs. Congress has yet to establish a comprehensive regulatory framework addressing the scale of the AI infrastructure buildout and its strain on energy and other critical resources. “The benefit side of the equation has not changed to keep pace with the tax on resources that these larger data centers are proposing,” Whitney said.
She anticipates mounting legislative pressure as lawmakers return from their August recess, though Congress faces a narrow window to craft a substantive response before year-end. “That’s why I see 202(c) as emergency reliability insurance,” Osnato concluded. “It is a bridge, not a design.”