Summaries of the agenda items for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's monthly open meeting to be held on December 18, 2025, pursuant to the sunshine notice released on December 11, 2025.
In this issue…
- Electric Items
- Gas Items
- Hydro Items
- Certificates
Electric
E-1 – PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (Docket No. EL25-49-000); Large Loads at Co-Located at Generating Facilities (Docket No. AD24-11-000); Constellation Energy Generation, LLC v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (Docket No. EL25-20-000); Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc., American Transmission Systems, Incorporated, Atlantic City Electric Company, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, Delmarva Power & Light Company, Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc., East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc., Essential Power Rock Springs, LLC, Hudson Transmission Partners, LLC, Jersey Central Power & Light Company, Mid-Atlantic Interstate Transmission, LLC, Neptune Regional Transmission System, LLC, Old Dominion Electric Cooperative, PECO Energy Company, PPL Electric Utilities Corporation, Potomac Electric Power Company, Public Service Electric and Gas Company, Rockland Electric Company, Trans- Allegheny Interstate Line Company, Transource West Virginia, LLC, UGI Utilities, Inc., Monongahela Power Company, The Potomac Edison Company, Commonwealth Edison Company, Commonwealth Edison Company of Indiana, Inc., The Dayton Power and Light Company, AEP Appalachian Transmission Company, Inc., AEP Indiana Michigan Transmission Company, Inc. AEP Kentucky Transmission Company, Inc., AEP Ohio Transmission Company, Inc., AEP West Virginia Transmission Company, Inc., Appalachian Power Company, Indiana Michigan Power Company, Kentucky Power Company, Kingsport Power Company, Ohio Power Company, Wheeling Power Company, Duquesne Light Company, Virginia Electric and Power Company, Linden VFT, LLC, City of Cleveland, Department of Public Utilities, Division of Cleveland Public Power, City of Hamilton, OH, Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative, Inc., Ohio Valley Electric Corporation, AMP Transmission, LLC, Silver Run Electric, LLC, NextEra Energy Transmission MidAtlantic Indiana, Inc., Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc. and Keystone Appalachian Transmission Company (Docket No. EL25-49-001) (consolidated). 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 (OATT) 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 OATT 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 OATT, 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. For additional context on co-location in PJM, please refer to our article: FERC Orders Review of Co-Located Generation for Data Centers in PJM.
The show cause order solicited comments from stakeholders and industry participants regarding potential revisions to the PJM OATT 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); OATT 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.
During the ensuing comment period, a significant number of parties filed responses, answers, and reply comments to the show cause order. On March 24, 2025, the Indicated PJM Transmission Owners (the above-captioned entities listed for Docket No. EL25-49-001) submitted an answer indicating support for the Commission determination that the existing PJM OATT 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 OATT (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 as the regional grid operator, 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 OATT 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.
Companies such as Amazon and Google (commonly known as hyperscalers by utilizing data centers for artificial intelligence) filed respective answers 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.
And, from a technical perspective, 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. For additional context on NERC's efforts to identify reliability impacts of data centers, please refer to our article: NERC tees up plan to assess grid risks associated with data centers.
- Note: The show cause proceeding was initiated prior to a recent directive issued by the Department of Energy (DOE) on October 23, 2025, where DOE instructed the Commission to expand its jurisdiction over interstate transmission in order to "rapidly accelerate the interconnection of large loads." DOE furnished an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR); subsequently, the Commission will undertake a rulemaking proceeding to evaluate this issue from a broader standpoint than exclusively in PJM. For additional context on the ANOPR, please refer to our article: DOE directs FERC to accelerate interconnection of data centers.
On November 21, 2025, Constellation filed a motion for expedited action, citing the "best path forward" to effectuate the necessary revisions to the PJM OATT in parallel with a potential comprehensive rule pursuant to the ANOPR. Constellation requested that the Commission issue a full replacement rate in the show cause proceeding, and, if not, issue an initial and targeted ruling that would clarify jurisdictional boundaries and require non-discriminatory cooperation by PJM transmission owners in large load and co-location study processes. In the motion, Constellation also referred to the proposed timeline of the show cause proceeding, stating that the Commission had intended to issue an order with 180 days (i.e., late June 2025) and had not yet done so. On December 5, 2025, PJM filed an answer to the Constellation motion, contending that Constellation sought to improperly preempt the ANOPR as well as PJM stakeholder initiatives led by its Board of Managers (namely, its Critical Issue Fast Path process). Accordingly, PJM stated that "the Commission should be cognizant that a set of rules or guidelines that are applicable only to the PJM market will not create a rational, durable, and predictable pathway for the national issues associated with large load interconnection." Certain other parties, including the Indicated PJM Transmission Owners, filed comments expressing that the Constellation motion should be denied.
Agenda item E-1 may be an order on the consolidated proceedings with respect to co-location in PJM.
E-2 – Daylight II, LLC (Docket No. ER26-173-000); Daylight II-A, LLC (Docket No. ER26-174-000); Daylight III, LLC (Docket No. ER26-175-000); EdSan MV Holding Company C, LLC (Docket No. ER26-176-000). On October 15, 2025, Daylight I, LLC, Daylight II, LLC, Daylight III, LLC, and EdSan MV Holding Company C, LLC (collectively, the Gen-Tie Entities) filed separate applications, pursuant to section 204 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), seeking Commission authorization to issue securities and assume liabilities. In the respective applications, the Gen-Tie Entities asserted that they are "interconnection-only" entities, as their transmission facilities consist solely of the generator interconnection facilities necessary to connect their respective renewable energy projects to the grid. The applications argued that, because the Gen-Tie Entities do not serve captive customers and their transmission assets are limited to these interconnection functions, the proposed securities issuances are consistent with the public interest and will not impair their ability to perform service as public utilities. Agenda item E-2 may be an order on the applications.
E-3 – GenOn Energy Management, LLC (Docket No. ER11-2508-028); Blossburg Power, LLC (Docket No. ER19-1865-002); Brunot Island Power, LLC (Docket No. ER19-2142-003); Chalk Point Power, LLC (Docket No. ER21-573-003); Chalk Point Steam, LLC (Docket No. ER20-1887-002); Dickerson Power, LLC (Docket No. ER21-574-003); GenOn Bowline, LLC (Docket No. ER19-1411-002); GenOn California South, LP (Docket No. ER19-1415-004); GenOn Power Midwest, LP (Docket No. ER19-1417-003); GenOn REMA, LLC (Docket No. ER19-1414-004); Gilbert Power, LLC (Docket No. ER19-2143-003); Hamilton Power, LLC (Docket No. ER19-1866-002); Heritage Power Marketing, LLC (Docket No. ER19-2148-004); Hunterstown Power, LLC (Docket No. ER19-1867-002); Lanyard Power Holdings, LLC (Docket No. ER21-568-001); Lanyard Power Marketing, LLC (Docket No. ER21-575-003); Lanyard Power Holdings, LLC (Docket No. ER21-568-001); Lanyard Power Marketing, LLC (Docket No. ER21-575-003); Morgantown Power, LLC (Docket No. ER21-577-003); Morgantown Station, LLC (Docket No. ER21-578-003); Mountain Power, LLC (Docket No. ER19-2147-003); New Castle Power, LLC (Docket No. ER19-2141-003); Niles Power, LLC (Docket No. ER19-1868-002); Orrtanna Power, LLC (Docket No. ER19-1869-002); Portland Power, LLC (Docket No. ER19-2145-003); Sayreville Power, LLC (Docket No. ER19-2144-003); Shawnee Power, LLC (Docket No. ER19-1870-002); Shawville Power, LLC (Docket No. ER19-2140-003); Titus Power, LLC (Docket No. ER19-1871-002); Tolna Power, LLC (Docket No. ER19-1872-002); Warren Generation, LLC (Docket No. ER19-2146-003). On June 29, 2023, the above-captioned entities (collectively, the GenOn Northeast MBR Sellers) submitted the triennial market power analysis for the Northeast region, pursuant to section 35.37 of the Commission's regulations. The triennial demonstrated that GenOn Northeast MBR Sellers continue to meet the criteria for market-based rate authority by showing that the respective entities do not possess horizontal or vertical market power. On August 28, 2023, the Independent Market Monitor for PJM (IMM) filed comments, arguing that the Commission should condition the GenOn Northeast MBR Sellers' market-based rate authority on specific market power mitigation measures, asserting that the PJM market is not structurally competitive. On September 12, 2023, the GenOn Northeast MBR Sellers filed reply comments, arguing that the IMM's protests constitute a collateral attack on the Commission-approved PJM market design and are outside the scope of the triennial review proceeding. Agenda item E-3 may be an order on the market power analysis.
E-4 – Ratts 2 Solar LLC (Docket No. ER26-427-000). On November 4, 2025, Ratts 2 Solar LLC (Ratts 2 Solar) filed a request for a limited and prospective waiver of certain provisions of the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO) Open Access Transmission, Energy and Operating Reserve Markets Tariff. Specifically, Ratts 2 Solar sought a waiver of the MISO Generator Interconnection Procedures to extend its Commercial Operation Date and prevent the termination of its Generator Interconnection Agreement. In support of the waiver, Ratts 2 Solar cited unforeseen development delays beyond its control, including supply chain disruptions affecting equipment procurement and challenges in finalizing off-take arrangements, which have hindered the project's ability to meet its original milestones. On November 21, 2025, the Commission issued an errata notice correcting the comment deadline for the proceeding to November 28, 2025. Agenda item E-4 may be an order on the waiver request.
E-5 – Sierra Club; Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.; and Sustainable FERC Project v. Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (Docket No. EL24-96-000). On April 1, 2024, the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Sustainable FERC Project (collectively, the Public Interest Organizations) filed a complaint, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), against Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP). The complaint alleged that SPP's existing capacity accreditation methodologies were unjust, unreasonable, and unduly discriminatory because they overvalued thermal resources while undervaluing renewable resources. Specifically, the Public Interest Organizations argued that SPP's current rules failed to account for correlated outages of thermal generators during extreme weather events (such as Winter Storm Uri) and did not adequately reflect the risk of fuel supply failures. On May 13, 2024, SPP filed an answer rejecting these claims, contending that the complaint was unnecessary and duplicative because SPP had already submitted a section 205 filing in order to reform its accreditation methodology which addressed the reliability concerns. SPP also asserted that the Public Interest Organizations failed to meet their burden under section 206 and that the pending section 205 proceeding was the appropriate venue to adjudicate the proposed changes. Most recently, on October 28, 2024, the Public Interest Organizations filed a motion to consolidate this docket with SPP's ongoing section 205 filings regarding resource accreditation. These related proceedings include the request filed by SPP on February 23, 2024 to implement Effective Load Carrying Capability (ELCC) methodologies for renewable resources and Performance-Based Accreditation (PBA) for thermal resources, as well as a September 3, 2024 filing proposing fuel assurance enhancements to the thermal accreditation methodology. Agenda item E-5 may be an order on the complaint.
E-6 – Idaho Power Company (Docket Nos. ER10-2126-008, ER10-2126-009, EL24-62-000, EL25-14-000). On December 21, 2023, Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power) submitted an updated market power analysis for the Northwest region, pursuant to section 205 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) and section 35.37 of the Commission's regulations. The filing served to demonstrate that Idaho Power continued to meet the Commission's criteria for market-based rate authority. In the analysis, Idaho Power asserted that it passed the pivotal supplier and wholesale market share screens. However, on February 27, 2024, the Commission instituted a proceeding under section 206 of the Federal Power Act to investigate whether Idaho Power's market-based rates remained just and reasonable, following an initial review suggesting Idaho Power may have failed the indicative screens in the balancing authority areas of Idaho Power, Avista, PacifiCorp-East, and PacifiCorp-West. On April 25, 2024, Idaho Power filed a response to the show cause order, submitting a revised market power analysis and arguing that the screen failures were due to unique characteristics of the hydro-dominated Northwest market and available transmission capacity that was not fully accounted for. Subsequently, on September 30, 2024, Idaho Power submitted a Change in Status filing reporting the acquisition of new generation resources. On October 15, 2025, Idaho Power filed a settlement agreement or mitigation proposal intended to resolve the market power concerns raised in the section 206 investigation. The proposal includes provisions for cost-based mitigation or the voluntary surrender of market-based rate authority in certain balancing authority areas. Agenda item E-6 may be an order on the market power analysis, the section 206 investigation, and the settlement agreement.
E-7 – Bear Swamp Power Company LLC (Docket No. ER10-2895-024); BIF II Safe Harbor Holdings, LLC (Docket No. ER14-1964-015); BIF III Holtwood LLC (Docket No. ER16-287-010); Bishop Hill Energy LLC (Docket No. ER12-161-026); Bitter Ridge Wind Farm, LLC (Docket No. ER20-2028-001); Black Bear Development Holdings, LLC (Docket No. ER13-2143-017); Black Bear Hydro Partners, LLC (Docket No. ER10-3167-017); Black Bear SO, LLC (Docket No. ER13-203-016); Blue Sky East, LLC (Docket No. ER12-2068-021); BREG Aggregator LLC (Docket No. ER17-482-009); Brookfield Energy Marketing Inc. (Docket No. ER19-1074-009); Brookfield Energy Marketing LP (Docket No. ER10-1427-003); Brookfield Energy Marketing US LLC (Docket No. ER20-1447-005); Brookfield Power Piney & Deep Creek LLC (Docket No. ER10-2917-024); Brookfield Renewable Energy Marketing US LLC (Docket No. ER19-1075-009); Brookfield Renewable Trading and Marketing LP (Docket No. ER19-529-009); Brookfield White Pine Hydro LLC (Docket No. ER13-1613-017); Canandaigua Power Partners, LLC (Docket No. ER10-2460-022); Canandaigua Power Partners II, LLC (Docket No. ER10-2461-023); Carr Street Generating Station, L.P. (Docket No. ER10-2918-025); Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P. (Docket No. ER10-2920-025); Erie Wind, LLC (Docket No. ER12-682-023); Evergreen Wind Power, LLC (Docket No. ER10-2463-021); Evergreen Wind Power III, LLC (Docket No. ER11-2201-027); Evolugen Trading and Marketing LP (Docket No. ER22-192-003); Great Lakes Hydro America, LLC (Docket No. ER10-2921-024); Hawks Nest Hydro LLC (Docket No. ER10-2922-024); Niagara Wind Power, LLC (Docket No. ER13-17-021); Rumford Falls Hydro LLC (Docket No. ER10-2966-024); Safe Harbor Water Power Corporation (Docket No. ER11-2383-020); Stetson Holdings, LLC (Docket No. ER12-1311-021); Stetson Wind II, LLC (Docket No. ER10-2466-022); TerraForm IWG Acquisition Holdings II, LLC (Docket No. ER22-1010-002); Vermont Wind, LLC (Docket No. ER11-4029-021). On December 30, 2022, the above-captioned entities (collectively, the Brookfield Companies) submitted an updated triennial market power analysis for the Northeast region, pursuant to section 205 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) and section 35.37 of the Commission's regulations. The filing served to demonstrate that the Brookfield Companies continued to meet the criteria for market-based rate authority. On February 22, 2023, the Brookfield Companies filed a supplement to their analysis to correct errors identified in the asset appendix regarding the affiliation of certain generation facilities. On May 15, 2025, Commission staff issued a deficiency letter, requesting additional information regarding the Brookfield Companies vertical market power analysis and specific inputs used in the indicative screens. On June 14, 2025, the Brookfield Companies filed a response to the deficiency letter, providing the requested data and clarifying the categorization of certain generation assets to support their conclusion that they pass the relevant screens. Agenda item E-7 may be an order on the market power analysis.
E-8 – Pinelawn Power, LLC (Docket No. ER10-3058-005); Edgewood Energy, LLC (Docket No. ER10-3066-005); Jackson Generation, LLC (Docket No. ER22-296-002); Equus Power I, L.P. (Docket No. ER10-3059-005); Shoreham Energy, LLC (Docket No. ER10-3065-005); Elwood Energy LLC (Docket No. ER10-2309-007). On June 29, 2023, the above-captioned indirect subsidiaries of J-POWER North America Holdings Co., Ltd. (J-POWER) submitted an updated market power analysis for the Northeast region, pursuant to section 205 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) and section 35.37 of the Commission's regulations. The filing served to demonstrate that J-POWER continued to meet the Commission's criteria for market-based rate authority. In the analysis, J-POWER asserted that it passed both the pivotal supplier and wholesale market share screens and did not possess horizontal or vertical market power in the relevant geographic market. Agenda item E-8 may be an order on the updated market power analysis.
E-9 – Tenaska Power Services Co. (Docket No. ER21-42-002). On June 10, 2022, Tenaska Power Services Co. (Tenaska) submitted a refund report pursuant to the order issued by the Commission on April 22, 2022, which found that Tenaska had not fully justified certain spot market sales exceeding the WECC soft price cap of $1,000/MWh during the August 2020 heatwave. In the April 22 order, the Commission accepted Tenaska's use of an index-based framework for the base rate, although it rejected the additional "premiums" charged above that index as unsupported by specific costs. On May 20, 2022, Tenaska filed a request for rehearing of the April 22 order, contesting the rejection of the premium adders. Agenda item E-9 may be an order on the rehearing request.
E-10 – Shell Energy North America (US), L.P. (Docket No. ER21-57-003). On June 2, 2022, Shell Energy North America (US), L.P. (Shell) submitted a refund report pursuant to the order issued by the Commission on April 22, 2022, which found that Shell had not fully justified certain spot market sales exceeding the WECC soft price cap of $1,000/MWh during the August 2020 heatwave. Similar to the Tenaska order discussed in agenda item E-9, the Commission accepted Tenaska's use of an index-based framework for the base rate and rejected the additional "premiums" charged above that index as unsupported by specific costs. In a separate sub-docket, on May 23, 2022, Shell filed a request for rehearing of the April 22 order, contesting the Commission's rejection of the premium adders. Agenda item E-10 may be an order on the rehearing request.
Gas
G-1 – Epping Transmission Company, LLC (Docket No. IS25-634-001). On June 20, 2025, Epping Transmission Company, LLC (Epping) submitted a tariff filing in order to increase its rates in accordance with the Commission's index methodology. On July 30, 2025, the Commission issued an order accepting and suspending the proposed rates for seven months, subject to refund, and establishing hearing and settlement judge procedures. The July 30 order also directed Epping to file a compliance filing to reflect the suspension of the proposed rates. Subsequently, Epping submitted the required compliance filing. Agenda item G-1 may be an order on the compliance filing.
G-2 – Northern Indiana Public Service Company (Docket No. PR25-53-001). On May 23, 2025, Northern Indiana Public Service Company LLC (NIPSCO) filed a petition to revise its Statement of Operating Conditions (SOC), pursuant to section 284.123 of the Commission's regulations. Namely, the petition proposed to update the rates and terms for interstate natural gas transportation services performed under Section 311 of the Natural Gas Policy Act (NGPA) to reflect recent changes in NIPSCO's state-approved rates and operating conditions. Subsequently, on September 12, 2025, NIPSCO submitted an amended application to revise its SOC. Agenda item G-2 may be an order on the petition.
G-3 – Consumers Energy Company (Docket No. PR25-52-001). On May 19, 2025, Consumers Energy Company (Consumers) filed an application for a limited jurisdiction certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN), pursuant to section 284.224 of the Commission's regulations. The CPCN would authorize Consumers, a local distribution company, to perform interstate natural gas transportation services without becoming a natural gas company subject to the Commission's full jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act (NGA). Subsequently, on September 15, 2025, Consumers submitted a filing to supplement its initial application to clarify certain operational parameters and tariff provisions associated with the proposed interstate service. Agenda item G-3 may be an order on the CPCN application.
G-4 – Matterhorn Express Pipeline, LLC (Docket Nos. PR25-11-002, PR25-11-001, PR25-11-000). On October 31, 2024, Matterhorn Express Pipeline, LLC (Matterhorn) filed a petition for rate approval pursuant to section 311 of the NGPA, with respect to proposed initial system rates and charges for transportation services on its intrastate pipeline system. On June 2, 2025, the Commission issued an order accepting Matterhorn's proposed rates and Statement of Operating Conditions (SOC), but required certain modifications. On July 2, 2025, Matterhorn filed a request for rehearing of the June 2 order, challenging the Commission's decision to condition acceptance of the rates on the removal of specific tariff provisions related to penalties and operational balancing agreements that Matterhorn argues are standard industry practice and necessary for reliable system operations. Agenda item G-4 may be an order on the rehearing request.
G-5 – Antero Resources Corporation (Docket No. OR25-2-000). On November 12, 2024, Antero Resources Corporation (Antero) filed a petition for emergency relief, requesting the Commission to direct Enterprise TE Products Pipeline Company LLC (Enterprise) to provide certain transportation service or relief regarding shipment allocations on its natural gas liquids pipeline system. In the Petition, Antero alleged that Enterprise's allocation methodology is unjust and unreasonable and has severely restricted Antero's ability to transport its product to market, causing significant financial harm. Enterprise subsequently filed a protest on November 15, 2024, arguing that Antero had failed to demonstrate a need for emergency action and that the petition is procedurally defective. A number of parties filed substantive comments and protests. On June 18, 2025, Enterprise filed a request for expedited action and motion for summary dismissal of the petition. Agenda item G-5 may be an order on the petition.
Hydro
H-1 – Yuba County Water Agency (Docket No. P-2246-104). On June 5, 2025, the Commission issued an order granting a new license to Yuba County Water Agency (Yuba) for the continued operation and maintenance of the Yuba River Development Project. The new license imposed various conditions to protect fish and wildlife resources, including higher minimum flow requirements and new fish passage infrastructure. On July 3, 2025, Yuba filed a request for rehearing of the June 5 order, contending that the Commission erred by adopting the State Water Resources Control Board's water quality certification conditions without sufficient evidence that they were necessary or economically feasible. Yuba argues that the Commission failed to properly balance developmental and non-developmental interests as required by the Federal Power Act (FPA). Agenda item H-1 may be an order on the rehearing request.
H-2 – Sho-Me Power Electric Cooperative (Docket No. P-2561-057). On May 12, 2025, Upper Peninsula Power Company (UPPCO) filed an application to amend its license for the Prickett Hydroelectric Project to authorize the replacement of the existing spillway and modification of the project's reservoir elevation limits. On August 15, 2025, Commission staff issued an order approving the amendment but included a condition requiring UPPCO to implement an expanded downstream erosion monitoring plan. On September 14, 2025, UPPCO filed a request for rehearing of the order, arguing that the expanded monitoring requirement is unsupported by the record and that the project modifications will not materially alter downstream sediment transport. Agenda item H-2 may be an order on the rehearing request.
Certificates
C-1 – Golden Pass LNG Terminal LLC (Docket No. CP25-205-000). On April 11, 2025, Golden Pass LNG Terminal LLC (Golden Pass) filed an application to amend its existing certificate authorizations in order to construct the Supply Lateral Project. The initial proposal sought to construct approximately 1.1 miles of 42-inch diameter natural gas supply lateral pipeline and associated facilities at its existing LNG terminal in Sabine Pass, Texas, to facilitate interconnections with intrastate and interstate pipelines for enhanced feed gas security. On August 1, 2025, Golden Pass filed an amendment to its application, significantly reducing the scope of the project by eliminating approximately 0.89 miles of the proposed pipeline and a meter station site, resulting in a reduced pipeline length of 0.22 miles. On September 12, 2025, the Commission issued an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed project, finding that approval would not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Agenda item C-1 may be an order on the amendment application.
C-2 – West Texas Gas Utility, LLC and Texas Pipeline Exports, LLC (Docket No. CP26-6-000). On October 10, 2025, West Texas Gas Utility, LLC (West Texas Gas) and Texas Pipeline Exports, LLC (Texas Pipeline Exports) filed a joint application to transfer the Natural Gas Act (NGA) Section 3 authorization and Presidential Permit for certain border crossing facilities located at the international boundary between the United States and Mexico. The application requests authorization to transfer the permit and facilities from West Texas Gas to Texas Pipeline Exports. Agenda item C-2 may be an order on the Presidential Permit and Section 3 authorization.
C-3 – West Texas Gas Utility, LLC and Texas Pipeline Exports, LLC (Docket No. CP26-7-000). On October 10, 2025, West Texas Gas and Texas Pipeline Exports filed a joint application to transfer the NGA Section 3 authorization and Presidential Permit for certain border crossing facilities located at the international boundary between the United States and Mexico. Similar to agenda item C-2, the application requests authorization to transfer the permit and facilities from West Texas Gas to Texas Pipeline Exports. Agenda item C-3 may be an order on the Presidential Permit and Section 3 authorization.
C-4 – West Texas Gas Utility, LLC and Texas Pipeline Exports, LLC (Docket No. CP26-8-000). On October 10, 2025, West Texas Gas and Texas Pipeline Exports filed a joint application to transfer the NGA Section 3 authorization and Presidential Permit for certain border crossing facilities located at the international boundary between the United States and Mexico. Similar to agenda items C-2 and C-3, the application requests authorization to transfer the permit and facilities from West Texas Gas to Texas Pipeline Exports. Agenda item C-4 may be an order on the Presidential Permit and Section 3 authorization.
C-5 – Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC (Docket No. CP25-60-000). On February 28, 2025, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco) filed an application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) in order to construct and operate the Southeast Supply Enhancement Project. The project would involve the construction of approximately 55 miles of pipeline looping and modifications to existing compressor stations across Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama, designed to provide approximately 1.6 million Dth/d of incremental firm transportation service. Following the application, Commission staff issued multiple environmental information requests to Transco in May and July 2025 to address data gaps regarding water resources and threatened species. On October 3, 2025, Commission staff issued an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project, concluding that approval would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, provided Transco adheres to specific mitigation measures. Subsequently, multiple environmental organizations filed respective protests, arguing that the EA failed to adequately assess greenhouse gas emissions and that the perceived market need does not outweigh environmental impacts. Agenda item C-5 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.
© 2025 White & Case LLP
