Summaries of the agenda items for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's monthly open meeting to be held on April 16, 2026, pursuant to the sunshine notice released on April 9, 2026.
Electric
E-1 – PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (Docket No. ER26-1088-000). On February 20, 2025, the Commission issued an order instituting a show cause proceeding, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), in order to determine if the PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) Open Access Transmission Tariff (Tariff) is unjust, unreasonable, and unduly discriminatory with respect to co-located generating units associated with data centers and other large loads. The order consolidated existing proceedings, including a technical conference convened on November 1, 2024 to discuss generic issues related to the co-location of large loads at generating facilities and a complaint filed in November 22, 2024 by Constellation Energy Generation, LLC (Constellation) against PJM. Collectively, the Commission combined the formal records of those proceedings in issuing the show cause order so as to focus primarily on existing provisions in the PJM Tariff and a PJM Guidance Document issued on March 22, 2024. As the Guidance Document furnished procedures and best practices for co-located large loads in PJM, but did not formalize all of those rules in the PJM Tariff, Constellation alleged in its complaint that certain utilities within the PJM footprint had exploited the lack of formal requirements in blocking co-located generating units.
The show cause order solicited comments from stakeholders and industry participants regarding potential revisions to the PJM Tariff if the Commission ultimately determined that it had been unjust and unreasonable. Namely, the Commission sought to spur discussion with respect to: jurisdictional issues (in the context of co-location, states determine which entities are legally permitted to provide electricity to retail customers in co-location arrangements); Tariff provisions (the lack of applicable provisions may have resulted in undue discrimination or preferential treatment, particularly relating to co-located generating units arranging for wholesale transmission or retail distribution service); and reliability and resource adequacy (potential impacts if co-located generation is not accounted for by grid operators). A number of other issues were raised in the show cause order, such that the Commission is compelled under section 206 of the FPA to ensure maximum protection to customers and ratepayers under its jurisdiction in the circumstance that a refund is mandated.
On March 24, 2025, the Indicated PJM Transmission Owners submitted an answer indicating support for the Commission determination that the existing PJM Tariff is just and reasonable and that co-located end-use large loads should be treated as load in front of the meter and designated in PJM as Network Load. Specifically, the Indicated PJM Transmission Owners asserted that the existing forms of transmission service in the PJM Tariff (Network Integration Transmission Service and Point-to-Point Transmission Service) sufficiently apply to co-location arrangements. The Indicated PJM Transmission Owners also supported procedures by which large loads would be "appropriately studied, charged, and factored in operationally" by PJM and transmission owners. As such, the Indicated PJM Transmission Owners stated that, as "beneficiaries of the transmission system," large loads and data centers should pay their share to avoid undue cost shifting to other ratepayers. The Indicated PJM Transmission Owners also emphasized that even "isolated" data centers may utilize grid services including frequency regulation, voltage support, and backup power.
For its part, PJM filed an answer on March 24, 2025, arguing that most co-location arrangements in its market should be treated as Network Load. PJM also stated that certain state laws within its footprint may grant local utilities retail franchise rights, which would preclude generating units from selling energy directly to a co-located large load regardless of wholesale rules under jurisdiction of the Commission. Constellation, and other independent power producers, contended that the current provisions within the PJM Tariff are tantamount to barriers to entry for co-located large loads. In its answer, Constellation stated that if a load is fully and physically disconnected from the grid, it does not utilize services provided by the incumbent transmission system and therefore should not subject to transmission charges. Hyperscalers such as Amazon and Google filed respective answers stating that co-location is often a bridge solution until regulatory certainty around interconnection timing and processes is improved. The companies generally offered a willingness to pay for transmission services, but conditioned it on the premise that "unused" transmission capacity should not be included in such allocations. Google proposed a commitment-backed requirement (that would align with recent efforts to streamline and expedite the interconnection queue), whereby only financially viable projects could enter the interconnection queue study process in order to filter out speculative requests.
The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) filed comments on April 23, 2025, largely echoing its refrain over the past year by highlighting the risks posed to reliability of the bulk power system. NERC specifically stated that, if a data center trips offline without warning, the respective system operators may not have imposed specific visibility and modeling standards necessary to respond accordingly in order to avoid a cascading disruption of grid services. Notably, NERC found that nuclear generation is well-suited for co-located large loads, given "its inherent high-capacity factor, load-carrying ability, and steady performance even in extreme weather conditions." NERC also reiterated that incidents caused by large loads have occurred and that new risks (including cybersecurity) may not be fully understood or accounted for in regulatory language.
On December 18, 2025, the Commission issued an order, finding that the terms of the Tariff were unjust and unreasonable and directing PJM to submit a compliance filing within 30 days. On January 20, 2026, PJM submitted the compliance filing in order to add a definition for Co-Located Load and to either clarify or relocate existing provisions within its Tariff with respect to Surplus Interconnection Service, Provisional Interconnection Service, requests for Interconnection Service below the full generating capability of a facility in order to serve Co-Located Load with new generation, and acceleration of requests for Interconnection Service in order to serve Co-Located Load with new generation. For additional information on new co-location services in the PJM Tariff in response to Commission directives, please refer to our article: PJM proposes to carve out new services for co-located data centers | White & Case LLP. Agenda item E-1 may be an order on the compliance filing.
E-2 – PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (Docket No. ER24-2045-004). On May 16, 2024, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) submitted its initial compliance filing with respect to Order Nos. 2023 and 2023-A. On June 20, 2024, Longroad Energy Holdings, LLC filed a motion to intervene and protest in response to the compliance filing, arguing that PJM's request to not accept surety bonds at all in the cluster study process should be rejected because surety bonds are typically structured and without conditions that undermine their use as financial security. On the same day, various parties submitted seven separate protests in response to PJM's compliance filing, arguing that PJM failed to meet the requirements of the Commission's Order No. 2023 and lacked adequate justification for a deviation under the independent entity variation. On July 12, 2024, PJM submitted an answer in response to the numerous protests and comments, arguing its Tariff already substantially complied with the requirements of Order Nos. 2023 and 2023-A and, accordingly, that changing its interconnection process reforms midway would be counterproductive and disruptive. On July 31, 2024, the Commission issued a Deficiency Letter in response to PJM's May 16 compliance filing requesting additional information. On October 29, 2024, PJM submitted its response to the July 31 deficiency letter. On November 19, 2024, various parties submitted protests of PJM's compliance order and its response to the Commission's deficiency letter, stating that PJM fails to substantiate its request for numerous deviations under the independent entity standard. On July 24, 2025, the Commission issued an order on compliance, finding that PJM's filing partially complies with Order Nos. 2023 and 2023-A. Namely, the Commission directed PJM to submit a further compliance filing within 60 days that proposes Tariff revisions to incorporate the required public interconnection information requirements into the Tariff (i.e., Queue Scope), including how the Queue Scope tool is updated, as required under Order No. 2023. Further, the Commission directed PJM to revise its Tariff to remove the provisions that permit transmission owners to waive scoping meetings and to require PJM to hold those meetings. On August 25, 2025, PJM filed a request for rehearing of the July 24 order. On October 23, 2025, PJM filed a further compliance filing in accordance with the directives of the Commission in the July 24 order. On November 12, 2025, PJM filed a motion for leave to file the further compliance filing one day out-of-time, attributing the inadvertent delay to an eTariff technical error. On November 13, 2025, several parties filed respective comments and protests to the October 23 compliance filing, contending that PJM has still not adequately justified its new requests for independent entity variations as well as improperly raised new requirements governing the terms of service for co-located generating facilities beyond the scope of this proceeding. Agenda item E-2 may be an order on PJM's second Order No. 2023 compliance filing.
E-3 – Participation of Aggregators of Retail Demand Response Customers in Markets Operated by Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators (Docket No. RM21-14-000). On March 18, 2021, the Commission issued a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) to examine whether to revise its regulations governing the participation of aggregators of retail demand response customers in wholesale markets, specifically soliciting comment on the potential removal of the "Demand Response Opt-Out" established in Order Nos. 719 and 719-A, pursuant to the Federal Power Act (FPA). On June 17, 2021, the Commission issued a notice setting the demand response opt-out provision for further consideration. Subsequently, on July 23, 2021, a vast coalition of industry participants, state regulators, and public interest organizations submitted initial comments regarding the ability of relevant electric retail regulatory authorities to prohibit demand response from being bid into wholesale markets. In their initial comments, the MISO Transmission Owners (MISO TOs) strongly urged the Commission to retain the existing opt-out, arguing that removing it would disrupt established state retail programs, create reliability and settlement risks, and undermine the cooperative federalism that allows states to protect local ratepayers. Similarly, the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) filed initial comments supporting the retention of the opt-out to avoid regulatory uncertainty and disruption to long-term state resource planning, alternatively requesting that existing state opt-outs be grandfathered if the Commission ultimately reverses its policy. Reply comments were filed extensively on August 23, 2021, by entities such as the American Public Power Association (APPA) and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA). Agenda item E-3 may be an order on the NOI.
E-4 – Rate Recovery, Reporting, and Accounting Treatment of Industry Association Dues and Certain Civic, Political, and Related Expenses; Center for Biological Diversity (Docket Nos. RM22-5-000, RM21-15-000). On December 16, 2021, the Commission issued a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) to examine its policies governing the rate recovery, reporting, and accounting treatment of industry association dues and certain civic, political, and related expenses, pursuant to the FPA. On February 22, 2022, multiple stakeholders submitted initial comments. Industry groups, including the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), the American Gas Association (AGA), and the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA), filed initial comments defending the existing framework. In contrast, public interest organizations such as the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), Earthjustice, and Public Citizen, Inc. (Public Citizen), along with state consumer advocates and attorneys general from states including Massachusetts and Michigan, filed initial comments urging the Commission to implement stricter accounting rules to prevent ratepayers from subsidizing utilities' political or advocacy activities. Additionally, a joint filing by PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), the California Independent System Operator Corp. (CAISO), the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO), and Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) urged the Commission to preserve existing precedent allowing them to recover costs for educational communications with public officials and certain association dues. These grid operators argued these expenditures are essential to their core operations and are already subject to stakeholder review. A subsequent round of reply comments was submitted by March 23, 2022, featuring extensive debate between utility trade associations and consumer advocacy coalitions over the evidentiary burden required to demonstrate direct ratepayer benefits. Agenda item E-4 may be an order on the NOI.
E-5 – Murphy Solar, LLC and Bells Solar, LLC (Docket No. ER26-1020-000). On January 9, 2026, Murphy Solar, LLC and Bells Solar, LLC (Murphy/Bells) filed a request for a limited waiver of Section 301(A)(3)(b)(iii) of the PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) Open Access Transmission Tariff, pursuant to section 205 of the FPA. Murphy/Bells requested the waiver to permit PJM to refund the readiness deposits of SunEnergy1, LLC and SE1 Devco, LLC. On January 30, 2026, PJM filed a protest requesting an expedited denial of the waiver request. In the protest, PJM argued that granting the waiver would disrupt the orderly administration of its interconnection queue and harm other project developers in Transition Cycle No. 1 by shifting the costs of underfunded network upgrades onto them. PJM further asserted that unforeseen government policy changes do not constitute a concrete problem warranting a waiver under established Commission precedent. Subsequently, on February 17, 2026, Murphy/Bells filed an answer to the protest from PJM. PJM then filed a responsive answer on February 27, 2026. Agenda item E-5 may be an order on the waiver request.
E-6 – Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Docket Nos. ER20-2878-022, ER22-619-003, ER22-620-003). On September 15, 2020, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) submitted its Wholesale Distribution Tariff Rate Case 2020 (WDT3) filing, pursuant to section 205 of the FPA. On November 13, 2020, the Commission issued an order accepting the WDT3 filing, subject to refund, and establishing settlement judge procedures. Over the following years, the Commission approved multiple partial settlements, including a July 15, 2021 order and a June 2, 2022 order. On April 3, 2024, PG&E and a group of wholesale customers, including the City and County of San Francisco (CCSF) and the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), filed an additional offer of settlement. On May 17, 2024, the Presiding Administrative Law Judge issued a partial initial decision on two outstanding issues not resolved by the settlements. On October 16, 2025, the Commission issued an order on initial decision regarding the WDT3 filing. On November 17, 2025, PG&E filed a request for rehearing of the October 2025 order, arguing that the Commission arbitrarily expanded the scope of its comparability standard to wholesale distribution service. Specifically, PG&E asserted that requiring comparability between FERC-jurisdictional wholesale distribution service and the distribution component of state-jurisdictional retail rates departs from established precedent and applies discriminatorily to PG&E. Also on November 17, 2025, CCSF filed a limited request for clarification or, in the alternative, rehearing of the October 2025 order. Agenda item E-6 may be an order on the rehearing requests.
E-7 – TransCanada Energy Sales Ltd. (Docket No. ER22-91-000). On October 12, 2021, TransCanada Energy Sales Ltd. (TransCanada) submitted a cost justification filing for short-term wholesale power sales that exceeded the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) $1,000/MWh soft price cap during the August 2020 extreme heat event, pursuant to section 205 of the FPA. On June 16, 2022, the Commission issued an order rejecting the justifications and directing refunds. On July 9, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) vacated the refund orders and remanded the case to the Commission. The D.C. Circuit held that the Commission should have conducted a Mobile-Sierra analysis prior to ordering refunds, as the presumption that contract rates are just and reasonable applies to such spot market sales unless they seriously harm the public interest. Agenda item E-7 may be an order on the remand.
E-8 – Guzman Energy LLC (Docket No. ER21-56-002). On October 7, 2020, Guzman Energy LLC (Guzman) submitted a cost justification filing for spot market sales that exceeded the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) $1,000/MWh soft price cap during August 2020, pursuant to section 205 of the FPA. Following Commission guidance, Guzman filed a supplemental justification on July 16, 2021, for sales made to Tucson Electric Power (TEP) and Energy Keepers, Inc. (Energy Keepers) at the Four Corners substation. On June 16, 2022, the Commission issued an order finding that the sales to TEP were justified because the prices were below the relevant Palo Verde index price. However, the Commission determined that Guzman failed to justify the premium charged for a sale to Energy Keepers and directed Guzman to issue refunds for the amount exceeding the index price. In the order, the Commission rejected the Guzman argument that the Mobile-Sierra presumption barred refunds, asserting that it was not modifying the contracts but rather enforcing restrictions incorporated into the market-based rate tariff of Guzman. On July 9, 2024, the D.C. Circuit vacated the refund orders and remanded the case. The D.C. Circuit held that the public interest presumption applies to such spot market sales and that the Commission erred by failing to conduct a Mobile-Sierra analysis before ordering refunds. Agenda item E-8 may be an order on the remand.
E-9 – Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. (Docket No. ER21-65-003). On October 7, 2020, Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. (Tri-State) submitted a cost justification filing for spot market sales that exceeded the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) $1,000/MWh soft price cap during August 2020, pursuant to section 205 of the FPA. Tri-State filed a supplemental justification on July 19, 2021, for sales made to the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District (Salt River) and Brookfield Renewable Trading and Marketing LP (Brookfield). Multiple stakeholders, including Southern California Edison Company (SCE) and PG&E, filed protests arguing that the sales were not just and reasonable and that Tri-State failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the premiums above the soft price cap. On May 20, 2022, the Commission issued an order finding that the sales to Brookfield were justified because the prices were below the relevant Palo Verde index price. However, the Commission determined that Tri-State failed to justify the premiums added to the index price for two day-ahead sales to Salt River and directed Tri-State to issue refunds. In the order, the Commission rejected the Tri-State argument that the Mobile-Sierra presumption barred refunds, asserting that it was enforcing a pre-existing restriction on the market-based rate authority of Tri-State. On July 9, 2024, the D.C. Circuit vacated the refund orders and remanded the case. The D.C. Circuit held that the public interest presumption applies to such spot market sales and that the Commission erred by failing to conduct a Mobile-Sierra analysis before ordering refunds. Agenda item E-9 may be an order on the remand.
E-10 – PacifiCorp (Docket No. ER21-60-002). On October 7, 2020, PacifiCorp (PacifiCorp) submitted a cost justification filing for spot market sales that exceeded the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) $1,000/MWh soft price cap during August 2020, pursuant to section 205 of the FPA. Multiple stakeholders, including Southern California Edison Company (SCE) and PG&E, filed initial protests and comments. On June 17, 2021, the Commission issued an order providing guidance that justifications for such sales could be based on production cost, index-based, or opportunity cost frameworks. PacifiCorp submitted a supplemental justification on July 19, 2021, for sales made to Arizona Public Service Company (APS) and Puget Sound Energy, Inc. (Puget Sound). On April 18, 2022, the Commission issued an order finding that the sales to APS were justified, but determined that PacifiCorp failed to justify the premiums charged for sales to Puget Sound and directed refunds. In the order, the Commission rejected the PacifiCorp argument that the Mobile-Sierra presumption barred refunds, asserting that the price cap was a pre-existing limitation on the market-based rate authority of PacifiCorp. On July 9, 2024, the D.C. Circuit vacated the refund orders and remanded the case. The D.C. Circuit held that the public interest presumption applies to such spot market sales and that the Commission erred by failing to conduct a Mobile-Sierra analysis before ordering refunds. Agenda item E-10 may be an order on the remand.
Gas
G-1 – Consumers Energy Company (Docket No. PR25-52-002). On May 19, 2025, Consumers Energy Company (Consumers Energy) filed an application for a limited jurisdiction blanket certificate under section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and section 284.224 of the Commission's regulations. Consumers Energy sought the certificate to transport and sell natural gas and renewable natural gas (RNG) in interstate commerce under section 311 of the Natural Gas Policy Act (NGPA). On December 18, 2025, the Commission issued an order granting the blanket certificate and accepting the Statement of Operating Conditions (SOC) subject to conditions. Specifically, the order directed Consumers Energy to revise its rate structure to follow the straight fixed variable (SFV) methodology, establish objective creditworthiness standards, and limit force majeure to events that are both uncontrollable and unexpected. In the order, the Commission also applied categorical exclusions from review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). On January 16, 2026, Sierra Club filed a request for rehearing, arguing that the NGA requires the Commission to consider upstream environmental consequences of factory-farm gas production as part of its public convenience and necessity analysis. Sierra Club further contended that the failure of the Commission to seek additional information regarding these impacts rendered the SOC and the underlying order arbitrary and capricious. Agenda item G-1 may be an order on the rehearing request.
Hydro
H-1 – Georgia Power Company (Docket Nos. P-2341-033, P-2350-025). On December 18, 2018, Georgia Power Company (Georgia Power) filed an application for the surrender, decommissioning, and removal of the Langdale and Riverview Hydroelectric Projects (the Projects), pursuant to section 6 of the Federal Power Act (FPA). The Projects are located on the Chattahoochee River along the border of Alabama and Georgia. On March 29, 2024, the Commission issued the Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzing the proposal to remove the Langdale, Crow Hop, and Riverview dams. In the EA, staff concluded that the decommissioning would restore the reach to a natural flow regime and provide long-term benefits to aquatic resources. On April 29, 2024, Georgia Power filed comments on the EA to provide technical clarifications regarding decommissioning design and the maintenance of minimum flows required for local wastewater treatment. Subsequently, on September 30, 2025, the Commission issued an executed Memorandum of Agreement establishing stipulations to mitigate the adverse effects of removing historic project structures. Agenda item H-1 may be an order on the application for surrender and decommissioning.
Certificates
C-1 – Gulf South Pipeline Company, LLC (Docket No. CP25-219-000). On April 16, 2025, Gulf South Pipeline Company, LLC (Gulf South) submitted an abbreviated application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN), pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA). Gulf South requested authorization for the Southeast Compression Utility and Reliability Expansion (SECURE) Project, which would increase firm transportation capacity on its system by 280,000 dekatherms per day. The SECURE Project would add compression at the existing Tallulah, Jasper, and Forrest compressor stations and construct the new Hinds compressor station in Hinds County, Mississippi. Throughout the proceeding, Commission staff and Gulf South engaged in a series of environmental and technical data requests and responses to develop the regulatory record. Prior to the issuance of the Environmental Assessment (EA), several stakeholders filed motions to intervene and comments regarding soil contamination, water quality, and potential noise impacts. On December 29, 2025, the Commission issued the EA, concluding that approval of the project would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Subsequently, Our Children's Trust and the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma filed comments regarding climate impacts and areas of historic interest. Agenda item C-1 may be an order on the CPCN application.
White & Case means the international legal practice comprising White & Case LLP, a New York State registered limited liability partnership, White & Case LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated under English law and all other affiliated partnerships, companies and entities.
This article is prepared for the general information of interested persons. It is not, and does not attempt to be, comprehensive in nature. Due to the general nature of its content, it should not be regarded as legal advice.
© 2026 White & Case LLP
