PPL Foresees Incremental Pennsylvania Legislation Emphasizing Data-Center Protections and Grid Reliability

Expected trajectory for Pennsylvania legislation in Harrisburg (what to watch in coming months)

Based on PPL Corporation’s commentary in its 2026 Q2 earnings transcript, the “legislative trajectory” in Pennsylvania in the coming months appears less about a sweeping statewide moratorium and more about incremental bills aimed at data-center development protections—alongside continued attention to resource adequacy issues shaped by PJM and FERC. Separately, on the regulatory side (PUC), PPL highlights mechanisms (notably DSIC) that are designed to help utilities stay out of frequent base rate cases, which can indirectly reflect what policymakers choose to prioritize.

1) The near-term legislative theme: slower local deployment + updated zoning/protections (not a ban)

PPL indicates that after significant activity earlier in the year (pre-budget), there has been a shift at the local level: elected officials are working to “slow down a little bit” so communities can review projects and “update their zoning requirements,” creating time to ensure developments are done “the right way” while still proceeding responsibly. ¹

PPL also notes that, while “legislation advanced in the House,” the “state continues to remain supportive” of the sector provided that “customers and our communities are protected,” and that proposed legislation is increasingly designed to build these protections into development. ¹

What to watch in the coming months

• Committee movement and passage mechanics for the bills “designed to ensure” protections for communities and customers. ¹
• Local implementation effects (zoning updates, review processes) consistent with the “slow down a little bit” theme described by management. ¹

2) PPL’s stance on moratorium risk: “not misplaced” to expect protections rather than stopping development

PPL explicitly says it does not expect moratorium-style outcomes, arguing that Pennsylvania should be able to add data centers as long as protections are in place: “I don’t think you’re going to see moratoriums… [we] just need to make sure that our customers and our communities are protected.” ²

So the expected trajectory—per PPL—is toward structured governance/protection frameworks rather than outright halt policies. ²

3) Areas lawmakers are keying into: water, land, noise, and electricity system reliability/prices

PPL characterizes the legislative “ideas behind” the bills as aligning with concerns about:

• Water and land
• Noise
• Power prices and power reliability
  and specifically frames these as connected to grid/resource adequacy and wholesale price pressure. ²

What to watch

• Legislative language or amendments that tie protections to electric reliability and/or cost impacts (including responsiveness to power price and reliability concerns). ²

4) Resource adequacy + generation policy: legislation is “keyed into” PJM/FERC activity, but not necessarily the top priority

PPL says Pennsylvania lawmakers are “keyed into all of those moving parts” at PJM and FERC and want to see whether federal/market reforms address resource adequacy concerns. ³ Management is skeptical that the PJM/FERC filing will resolve the long term, and it believes the bilateral contracting path is likely to be predominant in PJM—yet the legislature is watching and may “pull that lever” (e.g., regulated generation) if needed. ³

PPL also states that legislation is likely not the highest priority “for obvious reasons” given how much is happening at PJM/FERC and how governors/commissions want to observe outcomes first. ³

What to watch

• Any Pennsylvania bill actions that are explicitly contingent on, or responding to, PJM/RBP and FERC developments (e.g., language that either accelerates or delays state-level generation policy). ³
• Committee debates and whether bills exit committee (“we’ll see whether they come out of committee or not”). ³

5) Wholesale/regulatory impacts: legislation and tariffs intersect with capacity-price pressure and affordability

While your question is about “wholesale/regulatory issues,” PPL’s transcript ties Pennsylvania’s large-load growth and associated tariffs to managing wholesale-driven impacts.

Tariffs as a structural affordability mechanism (regulatory design that can be reinforced by policy)

PPL describes large-load tariff protections as requiring long contracts and enforceable customer payments intended to protect existing customers from cost shifts. ⁴ In addition, PPL says tariffs provide a “disciplined framework” to capture growth while ensuring growth “pays for growth.” ⁵

PPL also quantifies potential bill offsets and relates them to PJM capacity price levels:

• Starting in 2027, Pennsylvania’s large-load customer class contributes $11 million annually to low-income assistance that was previously funded by existing customers. ⁵
• PPL states existing Pennsylvania customers could see about $25/month off the transmission component if 31.8 GW in advanced stages is realized. ⁵
• PPL contrasts that with existing Pennsylvania customers paying more than $20/month due to higher PJM capacity prices. ⁵

Implication for what to watch Even if Harrisburg legislation is mostly “development protections,” policy can also reinforce the tariff framework that offsets wholesale price/capacity pressure experienced by existing customers. ⁵

6) Regulatory overlay in Pennsylvania (PUC): DSIC staying power depends on PUC openness to formula-based ROE/bands

Your question asked about bills/actions to watch that could affect regulation or wholesale/regulatory issues. In Pennsylvania, PPL highlights the regulatory mechanism landscape:

• PPL references a 2-year stay-out agreement in the Pennsylvania rate settlement, extending “through July 1, 2028,” during which base rates are not increased. ⁶
• PPL says it will maximize the time between rate cases and has used the DSIC mechanism “extremely effectively.” ⁶
• PPL adds that the PUC wants to “take a look at the DSIC mechanism” to potentially include “more formula-based ROE setting” and a “performance band around” base ROE, with the goal of allowing utilities to stay out of base rate cases longer. ⁷

What to watch

• PUC actions/engagement that move DSIC toward formula-based ROE and performance bands, because PPL explicitly links that direction to the possibility of staying out of base rate cases beyond the settlement’s minimum. ⁷
• DSIC/LTIP updates: PPL notes its current LTIP plan eligible for DSIC runs through 2027 and that it will file an updated 5-year LTIP plan next year. ⁶

While this is regulatory rather than Harrisburg legislation, it is directly tied to how regulators respond to affordability/resource needs—topics that are also being reflected in the legislative conversation about reliability and customer protection. ²⁷

7) Timing signals from the transcript: “coming months” likely emphasize committee progress and interaction with PJM/FERC outcomes

PPL frames the legislative path as unfolding through “bills… debated in their respective committees,” with uncertainty around whether they “come out of committee.” ³

So, in the coming months, the most actionable “watch items” are:

• Committee progress and outcomes for protection/zoning-related data-center legislation (and any amendments that shift responsibility between state vs local vs utility actions). ¹³
• Whether Pennsylvania decides to change state generation policy based on what happens with PJM and FERC—PPL suggests legislation is waiting to see “play out,” and state policy tools remain conditional. ³

Bottom line

From PPL’s perspective, the expected trajectory for Pennsylvania legislation in Harrisburg is:

1. Protective, governance-focused bills (water/land/noise and electricity-related affordability/reliability concerns) supporting development while controlling local impacts—not a moratorium approach. ¹²
2. A conditional stance on generation/resource adequacy policy, strongly influenced by PJM/FERC developments, with state lawmakers watching whether market reforms reduce resource-adequacy concerns before escalating to state levers. ³
3. Continued alignment between legislative intent and regulatory mechanisms/tariffs designed to keep existing customers protected against wholesale/capacity-price impacts as large loads materialize. ⁵⁴

All of the above is consistent with PPL’s stated view that Pennsylvania remains supportive of data-center growth so long as “customers and communities are protected.” ¹