By Ethan Howland of UtilityDive
A group of 80 Maryland state lawmakers are backing a complaint at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission over the PJM Interconnection’s cost allocation for transmission lines that support data centers.
Driven by the way PJM spreads transmission costs, Maryland ratepayers will pay $1.6 billion over the next decade for transmission projects that were approved in the grid operator’s last three regional transmission expansion plans that are designed to mainly serve out-of-state data centers, Maryland’s ratepayer advocate — the Office of People’s Counsel — said in its May 7 complaint.
“While PJM’s rules are unfair for many PJM states, they impact Maryland disproportionately simply because Maryland sits next to Data Center Alley in Virginia,” the Maryland lawmakers said in a Wednesday filing at FERC. “Given the projections of massive data center growth — more than 80,000 megawatts over the next 20 years — PJM is likely to bill Maryland customers billions more for future data center-driven transmission costs.”
The complaint at FERC comes amid an intense focus across the United States on how data centers can affect the electric bills of existing ratepayers through increased generation and transmission costs. The complaint centers on the transmission side of the equation. It contends that FERC is barred from approving transmission cost allocation methodologies that assign costs to ratepayers that won’t gain “roughly commensurate” benefits.
PJM’s cost allocation methodology assigns half of certain regional transmission projects based on a load-ratio share across its footprint, which assumes that all transmission built will benefit the entire grid, according to the ratepayer advocate’s complaint. The other half of transmission costs are assigned via a “solution-based distribution factor analysis,” which fails to capture certain reliability issues caused by data centers, the ratepayer advocate said.
Spreading data center-driven transmission costs across PJM’s footprint could lead to overbuilding, according to the complaint.
“By socializing data center-driven transmission costs to all ratepayers, it insulates states and utilities that attract speculative load growth from overbuilding and stranded asset risk while shifting those risks to neighboring states’ ratepayers,” the ratepayer advocate said.
Further, state-level large-load tariffs fail to address, and may make worse, the misallocation of transmission costs caused by PJM’s transmission cost allocation methodology, according to the complaint.
Also, recent FERC-approved utility “transmission security agreements” between utilities and data centers are “often confidential, highly variable, and fail to protect existing customers,” the ratepayer advocate said.
The agreements leave ratepayers exposed to transmission costs caused by data centers, according to the ratepayer advocate. “Moreover, they carry potential legal consequences that may prove difficult to unravel,” the ratepayer advocate said. The ratepayer advocate said FERC should order PJM to revise its cost allocation methodology so that data centers pay for the transmission projects that they cause.
As a start, PJM should be required to assign the costs of transmission projects that are designed to serve data centers and other large loads to the grid operator’s zones where the data centers are located, according to the complaint. That would allow state-level large load tariffs to address those transmission costs, the ratepayer advocate said.
“The upstream leakage of a substantial portion of data center driven costs at the regional level to other zones through the current operation of the PJM tariff creates an unjust subsidy for that data center load,” the ratepayer advocate said.
The complaint calls on FERC to order PJM to re-study the baseline reliability projects approved in its last three regional transmission expansion plans to determine the costs caused by forecast load growth from data centers.
FERC has extended the comment deadline on the complaint to July 27.
Tyler Durden Wed, 06/24/2026 - 20:20There remains a major divergence in how Iran and the United States are interpreting the results of the MoU signing in the wake of the historic Switzerland peace talks, as lower-level teams remain in place to hammer out the technical details of the agreement.
The divergence/contradiction continues to be seen in not only the latest statements from President Trump himself, but also from the US Treasury:
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has insisted that a large portion of unfrozen Iranian assets would go towards purchasing US food and medicine, despite claims from Iranian officials that they have made no such commitment.
“Any money that the Iranians get is going to be used, first, for the benefit of the Iranian people,” Bessent told CNBC.
It must be remembered that the "Iranian people" that Washington claims to look out for were subject to many weeks of heavy US-Israeli bombing raids, in which men, women, schoolgirls, and children were killed in mass casualty events.
Image via Forbes & Caspian postLikely the funds will be distributed through Qatar - and Bessent also emphasized in the CNBC remarks that "A very large percentage of it will go to buy US foodstuffs and medicine."
He said further, "So we will be recycling the money back into US products."
On Monday, President Trump said that "If the sanctions go out, money is going to be put into this country,” Trump said. “All that money is coming back in the form of purchases of food, which they desperately need… The money that we lift is going to go to our farmers, largely to our farmers."
But once again this is a situation where Iran's public-facing rhetoric obviously doesn't match up. Nothing regarding the Iranian position has changed:
But the Iranians deny that's part of the deal. A spokesperson for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, Esmail Baghaei, said any agricultural purchases would be based on “prices and quality,’’ not terms dictated by Washington.
“It is interesting that the philosophy and goal of the war, which was the destruction of the Iranian civilization and the collapse of Iran, has become enriching American farmers,” Baghaei said.
Iran’s ambassador in Geneva, Ali Bahreini, rejected Vance’s contention that the U.S. and Qatar would dictate how Iran uses unfrozen funds. “Iran is the only country who decides what to do with those assets,” he told reporters.
As a reminder, in total a whopping $50 billion could eventually be released under the MoU framework - something which will drive Republican hawks mad. Al Jazeera reported Tuesday, citing the Iranian side:
A spokesperson said the agreement would allow Iran access to previously frozen assets, although the US says restrictions would remain in place under the arrangement.
According to sources familiar with the negotiations, two separate tranches of $6bn were originally agreed in Doha, with the final signing ceremony intended to take place in Switzerland. The Iranian spokesperson now says that process has been completed.
Under the reported framework, an initial $12bn in Iranian funds would be released. During the 60-day negotiation period, a further $12bn could be unlocked. If the parties ultimately reach a final agreement, the value of sanctions relief and released funds could reportedly rise to as much as $50bn.
Another point of disagreement remains the entry of IAEA nuclear inspectors into the Islamic Republic. Vance had hailed Tehran already agreed to this, while Iran's leaders are in effect saying not so fast.
It's but one of several major contradictions in public rhetoric coming from either side in the wake of the top-level round one meeting in Switzerland.
Tyler Durden Wed, 06/24/2026 - 20:00The Antifa attack on the Texas ICE facility in Alvarado was a highly coordinated plan, using fireworks and a fake vandalism call to lure out ICE agents and police so that they could be shot in a hail of gunfire. Responding Alvarado Police Department Lieutenant Thomas Gross was shot in the shoulder and the rifle round exited his neck during the crossfire, but he managed to survive.
Members of the group tried to escape the scene, pretending to be harmless pedestrians, but were apprehended anyway. The common excuse among those detained: "We're just peaceful protesters..."
Eight of the activists who were found guilty by a federal jury of terrorism-related charges earlier this year learned the details of their punishments this week. The group's leader, Benjamin Song, was sentenced to a century in prison.
Song was hit with the longest prison sentence: 100 years behind bars. Maricela Rueda was sentenced to 70 years in prison. Autumn Hill was sentenced to 50 years, along with Zachary Evetts, Savanna Batten, Meagan Morris, and Elizabeth Soto. Daniel Rolando Sanchez-Estrada was sentenced to 30 years in prison. Critics of the conviction and sentencing claim the decision is purely "political"; designed to make examples out of leftist protesters who committed "minor crimes".
NEW: Families of the 8 convicted protestors at the Texas immigration center shooting that wounded a police officer speak out after they are sentenced to decades in prison.
Benjamin Song was convicted to 100 years in federal prison for attempted murder after opening fire and… pic.twitter.com/aC90IttcXo
The obvious counter-argument is yes, they are being made into an example, and that's a good thing.
Over 600 conservatives present at the January 6th protests were sentenced to prison for far less - Merely breaking a window or walking peacefully into the Capitol Building earned them a conviction and years of incarceration. This action was a true case of targeted government prosecution for the sake of making a political example. Meanwhile, Antifa and BLM protesters were given special protection.
Billions in property damage and numerous deaths later, BLM and Antifa members who were arrested used NGO funded legal resources to get out of jail quickly. Democrat run cities never pursued charges against the majority of them. This set a dangerous precedent; Antifa is now emboldened under the assumption that they can do anything they want and the consequences will be slim to none.
The recent federal court decision changes all that. At least when it comes to federal facilities, they can no longer count on a two-tiered justice system to keep them safe.
The primary enablers of far left violence (which has grown exponentially over the past decade) are global NGOs and their spinoff organizations, Democrat politicians, the progressive media and a lack of prominent symbols of punishment. When you're dealing with mentally unhinged zealots, the only way to make them stop is to make them afraid.
Until recently, Antifa has had little reason to be afraid. The system they claim to be fighting against has actually been supporting them and their insurgency from behind the curtain. The Trump Administration is set on changing this dynamic and the Alvarado, TX group is the first in line to face a reckoning.
Tyler Durden Wed, 06/24/2026 - 19:40