Oklo tells FERC that PJM's fault test is not in PJM's own guidelines

Oklo told the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on September 14, 2026 that the stability test PJM Interconnection used to drop its 750-MW project from Cycle 01 appears nowhere in PJM's Dynamic Model Development Guidelines, according to Oklo's answer in docket EL26-101-000. The project, 150 MW of advanced nuclear and 300 MW of natural gas generation with 300 MW of inverter-based fuel cells per Oklo's August 28 complaint, was withdrawn on August 3. Oklo's reply to PJM's September 4 answer says the guidelines contain two stability tests, a flat start test for all units and a voltage ride-through test for inverter-based resources, and that its cure submission passed the flat start test for the entire facility and the ride-through test for the fuel-cell units.

PJM's August 3 withdrawal notice, quoted in the answer, said "A 5 cycle 3-phase fault was performed at the POI. The plant was unstable for the twenty second simulation." A later PJM email, also quoted, called that the low-voltage ride-through test. PJM's answer, covered by The Duck Curve on September 12, said PJM "did not apply the low voltage ride through test to the facility," that a three-phase fault test "extends beyond the voltage ride through test," and that it appears Oklo tested the cured model with only the 300-MW fuel-cell portion in service, while at 750 MW the nuclear and gas units were unstable. Oklo calls that new explanation "a post hoc rationalization": the withdrawal notice "did not identify this test, or the Project's performance on it, as the source of a deficiency," the only three-phase fault in the guidelines is the 9-cycle ride-through fault in section 7.4, and there is "no third test" between sections 7.1 and 7.3, the provisions PJM cited. Oklo says it did not submit a model tailored to the 5-cycle test because nothing required one, but has prepared models for "various tests PJM might apply," including that one, and "stands ready to provide those to PJM."

Against PJM's reading that the tariff allows one cure round, Oklo argues that if the "Reasonable Efforts" language in section 403(b) lets PJM identify deficiencies after the initial 15-business-day review window, it must also allow more than one opportunity to cure. Oklo also calls the Expedited Interconnection Track PJM suggested "not a viable alternative."

The docket listed no Commission order as of September 16. Oklo's filing is styled a motion for leave to answer, because FERC's rules do not allow an answer to an answer without leave, and the docket does not yet show leave granted. PJM had asked FERC to act by September 14 if it grants relief; Phase I of Cycle 01 is scheduled to begin September 28.