DOE Directs FERC to Tackle Data Center Regulations

The federal government has sent a clear signal to the energy sector: the explosive growth of data centers is no longer a side conversation; it's a central regulatory priority.

The Department of Energy has directed the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to take meaningful action on large-load co-location and data center interconnection—two issues that have been quietly straining grid infrastructure for years. For developers, investors, and utilities who have been watching this space, the directive marks a turning point. What was once handled through informal workarounds and case-by-case negotiations is moving toward formal rulemaking.

That matters enormously—not just for how data centers get built, but for who gets to build them, where, and at what cost.

Why Regulations Are Finally Catching Up

Data centers have been consuming grid capacity at a pace that existing regulatory frameworks simply weren't designed to handle. Hyperscale facilities operated by the largest cloud and AI companies can draw hundreds of megawatts of power—continuously, with minimal tolerance for interruption. A single large campus can carry the load of a mid-sized city.

The grid wasn't built for this, and neither were the rules governing how large loads connect to it.

For years, utilities and grid operators managed these requests through interconnection queues built for a different era—one dominated by industrial manufacturers and commercial real estate, not AI training clusters running 24/7. Data centers don't just stress the grid; they stress the regulatory machinery around it. They arrive fast, scale faster, and often want to site in locations chosen for land cost and fiber access, not grid headroom.

The result has been a patchwork of interconnection agreements, co-location arrangements, and behind-the-meter deals that regulators have largely tolerated without clear standards. That era appears to be ending.

What the DOE's Directive Actually Means for FERC

FERC doesn't act in a vacuum. The Commission responds to petitions, legislative pressure, and—critically—direction from executive branch agencies like the DOE. When the DOE formally signals that large-load co-location and data center interconnection need regulatory attention, FERC listens.

The specific focus on co-location is telling. Co-location here refers to large energy consumers—data centers being the primary example—locating directly at or near generation assets, sometimes sharing infrastructure with power plants or substations. This arrangement can reduce transmission costs and improve reliability for the data center operator. But it raises serious questions for grid operators: Who has priority access to the power? What happens to wholesale market dynamics when a massive load bypasses normal interconnection channels?

FERC's role will likely center on establishing consistent standards where today there are almost none.

That could mean new requirements for how co-location agreements are structured, how capacity is allocated between the generation asset and the co-located load, and what disclosure obligations apply to market participants. None of these are simple questions. Each involves trade-offs between the interests of data center developers, generators, utilities, ratepayers, and competitive wholesale markets.

The rulemaking process will be slow by the standards of an industry that moves fast. But its outcomes will be durable—and will shape the investment calculus for anyone with capital deployed in this space.

The Real Barriers in Large-Load Co-location

Technical and logistical challenges in large-load co-location aren't hypothetical; they're already showing up in real projects.

Transmission infrastructure in many high-demand markets is constrained. When a data center developer identifies a site near a generation asset, the apparent simplicity of the co-location model often dissolves upon contact with engineering reality. Interconnection studies take months. Upgrade costs can run into the tens of millions. And if the generation asset is also serving the wholesale market, the interactions between the data center's load and the plant's dispatch obligations create complexity that neither party's lawyers fully anticipated when the deal was sketched out.

Regulatory compliance adds another layer. Right now, the rules governing what a co-located load must do—in terms of metering, reporting, curtailment obligations, and market participation—vary by region and by regional transmission organization. A structure that works cleanly under PJM's tariff may be entirely unworkable under MISO or SPP. Developers operating nationally face a genuine compliance maze.

The DOE's intervention is partly an acknowledgment that this fragmentation is becoming a barrier to investment, not just a compliance headache.

Standardization won't eliminate complexity, but it will reduce the transaction costs that currently make some otherwise viable projects uneconomical.

What This Means for Investors

If you're an infrastructure investor with exposure to data centers, co-location assets, or energy generation, the DOE-FERC dynamic deserves serious attention in your risk framework.

The optimistic read: regulatory clarity tends to unlock capital. Once FERC establishes workable standards for data center interconnection and co-location, the ambiguity premium that currently inflates deal costs and timelines should compress. Projects that couldn't pencil out under uncertain regulatory conditions become viable. Developers who've been waiting on the sidelines move.

The cautionary read: new rules create new compliance costs and—inevitably—new winners and losers. Generators who've been operating under informal co-location agreements may find that formalized rules require restructuring those arrangements at significant expense. Data center operators who built their power strategy around behind-the-meter setups may face changed economics if FERC decides those structures need to conform to wholesale market rules.

The non-obvious risk is timing. FERC rulemaking typically unfolds over 12 to 24 months from initiation to final rule, and contested rules get litigated. Investors in projects that are currently under development—not yet operational—face the real possibility that the regulatory ground shifts between groundbreaking and commercial operation. That's a risk that should be priced into deal structures now, not discovered at closing.

Where the Regulatory Arc Is Heading

Zoom out, and the direction is clear even if the destination isn't fully mapped yet.

Data centers represent one of the fastest-growing sources of electricity demand in the United States, driven by AI workloads that are only accelerating. The infrastructure investment required to serve that demand—new generation, new transmission, upgraded substations—runs into the hundreds of billions of dollars over the coming decade. Federal regulators cannot afford to leave the rules governing that buildout to informal arrangements and regional improvisation.

Expect FERC to move toward greater standardization of interconnection procedures for large loads specifically. The existing interconnection queue reforms that FERC has been implementing over the past several years were primarily designed with generation in mind. Load-side interconnection—the formal process by which a large new electricity consumer connects to the grid—has received far less attention. That imbalance is likely to be corrected.

On the technology side, the integration of battery storage into data center power strategies is accelerating. Behind-the-meter storage can reduce peak demand charges, provide backup power, and—in some regulatory environments—participate in demand response programs that generate revenue. As FERC develops clearer rules for data center interconnection, the treatment of co-located storage assets will be a critical detail. Developers who get ahead of that question will have a structural advantage.

The investors and developers who understand the regulatory trajectory—not just the current rules—will be the ones positioned to move decisively when clarity arrives.

The DOE's directive to FERC is, ultimately, the beginning of a process, not the end of one. The formal rulemaking will surface competing interests, generate substantial public comment, and likely produce rules that satisfy no one entirely. That's how federal energy regulation works.

But the direction of travel is set. Large-load co-location and data center interconnection are moving from regulatory gray zones into formal frameworks. The infrastructure sector has a window—measured in months, not years—to engage with that process, shape its outcomes, and position capital accordingly. The developers and investors who treat this as a compliance problem to be managed later will find themselves reacting to rules they had every opportunity to influence.

**Explore the InfraSale Marketplace for insights and opportunities in the energy sector.**