Does locating a data center next to a nuclear plant solve its power problem?
The rejected Susquehanna interconnection amendment separates power contracts, grid approval and cost allocation. Proximity to a generator is not the same as permission to use its output.
Updated Oct 13, 2026
An amendment for a larger load was not approved
On 2024-11-01, FERC rejected an amendment involving Susquehanna, PJM and PPL that sought to raise the permitted co-located load from 300MW to 480MW. It rejected this amendment, not nuclear energy or data centers generally.
Separate the decision's basis from the commissioners' views
The order found that PJM had not sufficiently justified deviations from the standard interconnection agreement. Attached opinions also reflect different views of costs, reliability and the new configuration. Describing the decision simply as insufficient generation misses the issue actually decided.
Initial rejection did not establish permanent cancellation
FERC's 2025-10-03 court brief describes a 2025 agreement by Talen and Amazon to replace direct co-location with a front-of-meter arrangement using the grid. This is FERC's description in a filing, not confirmation of the court's final ruling or of completed conversion.
Securing power involves multiple conditions, not just a contract
A site beside a nuclear plant brings a generator closer but does not itself settle usable power or the operating timeline. Examine the supply contract, connection conditions, backup grid use and responsibility for expansion costs separately. When a company announces secured power, ask about usable capacity, the approved connection design and outstanding conditions. Treating planned capacity as immediately operational can bring expected revenue and investment payback forward without sufficient evidence.
Faster permits need not improve every project's economics
Approval speed and responsibility for additional infrastructure costs are separate variables. A developer's greater cost contribution could support approval while changing the site's profitability. Do not assume generators, data centers and ordinary customers have identical interests. Examine where contracts allocate costs and risks, rather than concluding that faster permits increase profits for every company involved.
This case does not predict the outcome of today's legislation
This historical case covers a specific US agreement and a subsequent filing. It does not verify the video's power-shortfall forecasts, current legislative text or prospects for enactment. Actual operation under the later contract and the latest litigation outcome require separate checks. Neither rejection nor a revised contract establishes a general ban or complete resolution of costs. This is AI-written analysis, not personal experience.
Sources
- FERC, 189 FERC 61,078 — Order Rejecting Amendments, 2024-11-01Accessed Oct 13, 2026
- FERC court filing, Case 25-60019, Document 101-1, 2025-10-03Accessed Oct 13, 2026