Summaries of the agenda items for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's monthly open meeting to be held on July 16, 2026, pursuant to the sunshine notice released on July 9, 2026.
Electric
E-1 – Reliability Standard(s) Pertaining to Computational Load Integration (Docket No. RD26-7-000). Agenda item E-1 may be an action that is being taken sua sponte by the Commission in order to initiate a rulemaking proceeding with respect to Reliability Standards pertaining to computational load integration. For additional context, please refer to our article published last year: NERC tees up plan to assess grid risks associated with data centers | White & Case LLP.
E-2 – Western Seams Coordination (Docket No. AD26-10-000). Agenda item E-2 may be an action that is being taken sua sponte by the Commission in order to initiate an administrative proceeding with respect to Western seams coordination, following the white paper published by the Commission in November 2025 as well as the expansion of the Southwest Power Pool service territory into the Western Interconnection in April 2026.
E-3 – Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (Docket No. ER16-1341-005). On April 1, 2016, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) filed a petition for waiver of certain provisions of its Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) related to the implementation of the revenue crediting process in Attachment Z2 for a historical period. In the petition, SPP sought to waive a one-year limitation on billing adjustments to recalculate, collect, and pay revenue credits compensating entities that paid for network upgrades subsequently used to provide transmission service. On July 7, 2016, the Commission issued an order granting the waiver petition, finding that SPP provided sufficient notice to stakeholders and that transmission customers benefited from upgrades without providing compensation to the initial sponsors. On November 6, 2017, the Commission denied respective requests for rehearing of the July 2016 order. On February 28, 2019, the Commission issued an order on remand, finding that it was unable to grant the waiver request due to the filed rate doctrine, following a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) regarding adequate notice, and directed SPP to refund credit payment obligations collected during the historical period. On June 28, 2019, SPP submitted a compliance report, detailing a proposed plan for implementing refunds.
On August 5, 2025, a coalition of project sponsors (Project Sponsors) filed a request for prompt action to stop the accrual of interest. On September 18, 2025, the Commission directed SPP to submit a compliance filing regarding the implementation of the revenue crediting process. On November 3, 2025, SPP submitted the compliance filing, providing the recoupment amounts with interest owed by entities that received revenue credits during the historical refund period from 2008 through 2015 and the corresponding refund amounts for entities that paid credit payment obligations. SPP proposed to address short-payments on an aggregate basis across all creditable upgrades, establish a five-year payment plan allocating refunds quarterly on a pro rata basis, and implement an Accelerated Netting Solution (ANS) software system to facilitate the resettlement of previously invoiced amounts. On November 24, 2025, Xcel Energy Services Inc. on behalf of Southwestern Public Service Company (Xcel) filed comments, noting that the ANS remains conceptual and reserving the right to protest resettlement amounts. On November 24, 2025, the Project Sponsors submitted comments, urging the Commission to promptly direct SPP to issue final invoices for refunds to halt the continued accrual of interest. Agenda item E-3 may be an order regarding the compliance filing.
E-4 – Public Citizen, Inc. v. Public Service Electric and Gas Company (Docket No. EL26-40-000). On January 14, 2026, Public Citizen, Inc. (Public Citizen) filed a complaint against Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G), pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA). In the complaint, Public Citizen alleged that PSE&G seeks to recover unjust and unreasonable expenses related to its Roseland-to-Pleasant Valley transmission project and requested the Commission establish a refund effective date and hold a hearing. Public Citizen asserted that a prior enforcement order issued by the Commission in December 2024 found that PSE&G provided inaccurate information to PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) regarding transmission tower reconstruction. On February 3, 2026, PSE&G submitted an answer and motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the complaint fails to meet the statutory burden of proof and that the referenced enforcement order focused solely on the accuracy of communications without challenging the underlying end-of-life determination for the transmission line. On March 3, 2026, the Harvard Electricity Law Initiative (Harvard) filed comments in support of consumers, arguing there is sufficient evidence to shift the burden to PSE&G or to direct the Office of Enforcement (OE) to file an impact report. On March 18, 2026, PSE&G submitted an answer to the comments by Harvard, stating the filing was out of time, that insufficient evidence exists to establish serious doubt, and that existing formula rate protocols render the information asymmetry concerns meritless. On April 2, 2026, the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (NJBPU) filed an answer supporting the complaint, arguing that PJM relying on inaccurate data raises serious doubt regarding project prudence and requesting the Commission reconsider its policy of granting a presumption of prudence to projects lacking state certificate of public convenience and necessity review. On April 17, 2026, PSE&G submitted an answer responsive to the NJBPU, justifying its effective formula rate protocols and stating that the prudence presumption policy is an issue of broad implication beyond the scope of the complaint proceeding. On July 2, 2026, Renewable Energy Aggregators, Inc. filed a motion to intervene out of time and limited comments in support of the complaint. Agenda item E-4 may be an order regarding the complaint.
E-5 – Southern California Edison Company (Docket Nos. ER24-2776-000, ER24-2776-001, ER24-2776-002). On August 14, 2024, Southern California Edison Company (SCE) submitted a compliance filing, pursuant to Order No. 2023 and Order No. 2023-A, with respect to proposed amendments to its Wholesale Distribution Access Tariff (WDAT). In the compliance filing, SCE stated that it generally fashioned its revisions based on the form and structure of the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) Order No. 2023 compliance filing, noting that the Commission directed distribution system providers to address applicability concerns in individual filings because Order No. 2023 did not fully apply to WDATs. On September 4, 2024, Terra-Gen, LLC filed a protest, claiming that certain proposed deviations from pro forma provisions, namely failing to include the option for interconnection customers to provide operation assumptions, are neither consistent with nor superior to Commission requirements. On September 20, 2024, SCE submitted an answer, stating that Order No. 2023 did not address operating assumptions for transmission or distribution service. On January 20, 2026, SCE filed a further compliance filing in response to a Commission order regarding the August 2024 initial compliance filing. SCE proposed a definition for regulatory limitations and agreed to revise cluster study agreements to reflect pro forma provisions for standalone network upgrades, while renewing its request to omit the automatic extension of fewer than three cumulative years for commercial operation dates. SCE clarified its variations regarding network upgrade cost allocations and transition process readiness requirements as necessary to align with CAISO methodologies. SCE explained its exclusion of the requirement to use interconnection customer operating assumptions by demonstrating its existing tariff expressly recognizes the operating characteristics of electric storage resources through the provision of As-Available Charging Distribution Service and Firm Charging Distribution Service. Agenda item E-5 may be an order regarding the further compliance filing.
E-6 – Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Docket Nos. ER24-3032-000, ER24-3032-001). On September 13, 2024, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) submitted a compliance filing, pursuant to Order No. 2023 and Order No. 2023-A, with respect to proposed amendments to its Wholesale Distribution Tariff (WDT). In the compliance filing, PG&E stated that it generally fashioned its revisions based on the form and structure of the CAISO Order No. 2023 compliance filing, noting that the Commission directed distribution system providers to address applicability concerns in individual filings. Order No. 2023 required transmission providers to employ a first-ready, first-served cluster study process for large generating facilities exceeding 20 megawatts. On October 4, 2024, the California Energy Storage Alliance filed a protest, contending that the PG&E compliance filing fails to provide interconnection customers with electric storage resources the ability to design and charge their facilities in a manner that would satisfy the proposed operating parameters. On October 15, 2024, PG&E submitted an answer, stating that Order No. 2023 did not require utilities to use the proposed operating parameters or assumptions of an interconnection customer. On November 20, 2025, the Commission issued an order regarding the September 2024 initial compliance filing. On January 20, 2026, PG&E filed a further compliance filing in response to the November 2025 order. PG&E detailed changes to its Generator Interconnection Study Procedures to align with the pro forma Large Generator Interconnection Procedures and preserve synchronization with CAISO. PG&E sought to adopt without modification the pro forma language regarding surety bonds, definitions for substation and system network upgrades, and withdrawal penalty calculations and included a 90-day transition period for interconnection customers with active requests to comply with the new readiness requirements. PG&E explained its retention of the application fee and study deposit for affected system studies as reasonable given the technical analyses required and requested an effective date of September 16, 2024. Agenda item E-6 may be an order regarding the further compliance filing.
E-7 – San Diego Gas & Electric Company (Docket Nos. ER10-1391-003, ER10-1391-004). On August 28, 2024, San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) submitted a compliance filing, pursuant to Order No. 2023 and Order No. 2023-A, with respect to proposed amendments to its WDAT. In the compliance filing, SDG&E stated that it generally fashioned its revisions based on the form and structure of the CAISO Order No. 2023 compliance filing, noting that the Commission directed distribution system providers to address applicability concerns in individual filings. On September 18, 2024, multiple entities, including the California Energy Storage Alliance, the Clean Energy Alliance, San Diego Community Power (SDCP), and the Clean Coalition, filed respective protests, alleging the proposed elimination of the Independent Study Process (ISP) would impede small generator interconnections and asserting that proposed operating assumptions for electric storage resources would fail to permit control technologies that ensure operation within agreed-upon parameters. On November 4, 2024, SDG&E submitted an answer, contending that it does not expressly prohibit certain practices by removing the ISP while preserving the Fast Track serial screening process in order to strike a balance between preserving the interests of small and large generator interconnection customers. On August 1, 2025, a coalition including SDCP filed a motion for expedited consideration. On November 20, 2025, the Commission issued an order regarding the August 2024 initial compliance filing. On January 20, 2026, SDG&E submitted a further compliance filing in response to the November 2025 order. SDG&E detailed revisions to reconcile definitions for material modifications and queue positions across its interconnection agreements, and aligned the cluster study commencement to begin 150 calendar days from the close of the customer engagement window. SDG&E explained its methodology for the identification and cost allocation of delivery network upgrades utilizing a distribution factor flow impact methodology. SDG&E incorporated pro forma terminology for substation and system network upgrades while relying on an independent entity variation for per capita cost allocation. SDG&E clarified that it will account for large generating facilities separately from small generating facilities in the calculation and allocation of study delay penalties. SDG&E requested an effective date of August 15, 2024. Agenda item E-7 may be an order regarding the further compliance filing.
E-8 – North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation v. Duke Energy Progress, LLC (Docket No. EL26-47-000). On February 23, 2026, North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation (NCEMC) filed a complaint against Duke Energy Progress, LLC (DEP), pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA). In the complaint, NCEMC alleged that the DEP transmission formula rate is unjust and unreasonable regarding the cost allocation of four proactive solar network upgrade projects, claiming that allocating 100 percent of the costs to transmission customers rather than interconnecting solar developers is unduly discriminatory. NCEMC requested the Commission establish a replacement rate reducing the cost allocation for the four projects to transmission customers by approximately 50 percent, proposing that transmission customers serve only as a backstop if DEP cannot recover costs from solar subscribers. On March 25, 2026, Sierra Club and Southern Alliance for Clean Energy filed a protest in opposition to the complaint. On March 25, 2026, DEP submitted an answer and motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the upgrades were planned through a collaborative process to provide broad system-wide reliability and economic benefits and explaining that project drivers cannot substitute for evidence of actual network usage. On April 9, 2026, NCEMC filed an answer, responding to the motion to dismiss and protest. On April 27, 2026, DEP submitted a limited answer to the NCEMC pleading. Agenda item E-8 may be an order regarding the complaint.
E-9 – Eagle Creek Reusens Hydro, LLC and Great Falls Hydroelectric Company (Docket Nos. ER21-2832-000, ER21-2832-002, ER21-2833-000, ER21-2833-002). On September 3, 2021, Eagle Creek Reusens Hydro, LLC and Great Falls Hydroelectric Company (collectively, the Applicants) filed proposed Reactive Supply and Voltage Control from Generation or Other Sources Service Tariffs (Reactive Tariffs). The Applicants proposed cost-based revenue requirements to recover costs associated with providing reactive service from their respective hydroelectric generating facilities under Schedule 2 of the PJM OATT. On November 2, 2021, the Commission issued an order accepting the proposed Reactive Tariffs, suspending them for a nominal period to become effective October 1, 2021, subject to refund, and establishing hearing and settlement judge procedures. On July 26, 2022, the Applicants submitted a joint offer of settlement, proposing a black box resolution to all outstanding material issues set for hearing in the proceedings. The Chief Administrative Law Judge (Chief ALJ) granted a motion for interim implementation of the settlement rates on July 28, 2022. On August 15, 2022, the Independent Market Monitor for PJM (IMM) filed comments opposing the offer of settlement, arguing the annual revenue requirements are excessive and inconsistent with competitive markets. On August 15, 2022, Commission Trial Staff (Trial Staff) submitted initial comments in support of the offer of settlement, stating the agreement produces rate certainty and avoids the time and expense associated with litigation. On August 25, 2022, the Applicants and Trial Staff filed respective reply comments, urging the certification of the settlement as uncontested. The Settlement Judge reported the offer of settlement to the Commission as contested on October 31, 2022 and, subsequently, the Chief ALJ terminated settlement judge procedures on November 8, 2022. On October 20, 2025, the Commission issued an Order on Settlement, finding it unclear whether the facilities are operationally capable of providing reactive service to maintain transmission voltages and directing the Applicants to provide additional information. On November 10, 2025, the Applicants submitted a response to the request, stating that the facilities are operationally capable of producing and absorbing reactive power as directed by the transmission provider. On November 21, 2025, the IMM filed comments, arguing the Applicants failed to demonstrate the facilities are directly interconnected to the bulk electric system. Agenda item E-9 may be an order regarding the contested offer of settlement.
E-10 – Lakehurst Solar, L.L.C. (Docket Nos. ER21-737-000, ER21-737-001). On December 28, 2020, Lakehurst Solar, L.L.C. (Lakehurst) submitted a reactive power compensation tariff filing, proposing a rate schedule to recover costs associated with providing reactive supply service. On February 26, 2021, the Commission issued an order accepting and suspending the proposed rate schedule and establishing hearing and settlement judge procedures. On August 18, 2021, Lakehurst filed an offer of settlement. On September 7, 2021, Trial Staff submitted initial comments in support of the offer of settlement, stating the agreement represents a fair and reasonable resolution of the issues. On September 7, 2021, the IMM filed a reply in opposition to the offer of settlement, arguing the facility is not eligible to receive a rate because it is not interconnected to the PJM transmission system. On September 16, 2021, Lakehurst submitted reply comments, contending that the IMM failed to allege a genuine issue of material fact. On September 17, 2021, Trial Staff filed reply comments, arguing the IMM failed to establish a reasonable basis for withholding approval. The Settlement Judge certified the settlement to the Commission as uncontested on October 21, 2021 and the Chief ALJ terminated settlement judge procedures on October 25, 2021. On October 15, 2025, the Commission issued an Order on Settlement, describing the settlement as contested and, as a result, directing Lakehurst to provide additional information regarding whether the facility is operationally capable of providing reactive service. On December 22, 2025, Lakehurst submitted a response to the October 2025 order, stating that the facility meets eligibility requirements under PJM Schedule 2 and is operationally capable of providing reactive service. Agenda item E-10 may be an order regarding the settlement proceeding.
E-11 – Oxbow Creek Energy LLC (Docket Nos. ER19-2847-003, ER19-2847-000, EL20-9-000). On September 23, 2019, Oxbow Creek Energy LLC (Oxbow) submitted a proposed reactive power tariff, detailing a cost-based revenue requirement to recover costs associated with its provision of Reactive Supply and Voltage Control from Generation or Other Sources Service (Reactive Service) from a natural gas-fired electric generation facility under Schedule 2 of the PJM OATT. On November 26, 2019, the Commission issued an order accepting the proposed rate schedule, instituting a proceeding pursuant to section 206 of the FPA, and establishing hearing and settlement judge procedures. On November 5, 2020, Oxbow filed an unopposed motion to hold the proceeding in abeyance pending the outcome of related proceedings. The Settlement Judge declared an impasse on February 22, 2021. The Chief Administrative Law Judge terminated settlement judge procedures and designated a Presiding Administrative Law Judge (Presiding ALJ) on February 23, 2021. On May 27, 2021, Oxbow submitted an offer of settlement and a concurrent motion for authorization to implement the settlement rate on an interim basis. On June 16, 2021, Trial Staff submitted initial comments in support of the offer of settlement, stating the agreement provides significant benefits to ratepayers. On June 16, 2021, the IMM filed a reply in opposition to the offer of settlement, arguing the facility is not eligible to receive a rate because it is not interconnected to facilities operated by PJM. On June 28, 2021, Oxbow submitted reply comments, conteding the IMM failed to support its legal issue regarding eligibility. On June 28, 2021, Trial Staff filed reply comments, arguing the IMM failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact or a reasonable basis for withholding approval. The Presiding ALJ certified the settlement to the Commission as uncontested on July 13, 2021. On October 20, 2025, the Commission issued an Order on Settlement, describing the settlement as contested and directing Oxbow to provide additional information regarding whether the facility is operationally capable of providing reactive service. On November 10, 2025, Oxbow submitted a response to the October 2025 order, stating that reactive power testing demonstrates the facility is operationally capable of producing or absorbing reactive power as required by PJM. On November 21, 2025, the IMM filed comments regarding the additional information, arguing Oxbow cannot establish eligibility without demonstrating that the facility interconnects to the PJM system. Agenda item E-11 may be an order regarding the contested offer of settlement.
E-12 – Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Energy Services LLC (Docket No. ER23-2121-000). On June 12, 2023, Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Energy Services LLC (FMES) submitted a report and motion to accept the report out of time regarding wholesale sales of electricity. In the report, FMES detailed a spot market sale to Tenaska made in September 2022 in the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) region that exceeded the soft price cap established by the Commission. FMES asserted that the sale was just and reasonable, supporting its cost justification with a liquidity analysis for the Palo Verde trading hub and a comparative assessment of CAISO locational marginal prices. FMES provided additional data regarding energy imbalance payments from Arizona Public Service Company to further substantiate the market conditions and costs associated with the transaction. Agenda item E-12 may be an order regarding the report.
E-13 – ConocoPhillips Company (Docket No. ER23-2385-000). On July 7, 2023, ConocoPhillips Company (ConocoPhillips) filed a report and motion to accept the report out of time regarding wholesale sales of electric energy. In the report, ConocoPhillips detailed five spot market sales made between September 5, 2022, and September 7, 2022, in the WECC region that exceeded the soft price cap established by the Commission. ConocoPhillips noted the transactions were executed pursuant to energy management agreements to supply Mesquite Power LLC and Grays Harbor Energy LLC when those entities were in short positions during a period of extreme heat. ConocoPhillips explained that it purchased power from the CAISO fifteen-minute market for resale to Mesquite and from Tacoma Power for resale to Grays Harbor. ConocoPhillips asserted that the sales were just and reasonable because they were functionally equivalent to sleeving transactions, noting that no additional margin was charged and the sales prices equaled the purchase prices. Agenda item E-13 may be an order regarding the report.
E-14 – NextEra Energy Marketing, LLC (Docket No. ER23-2613-000). On August 8, 2023, NextEra Energy Marketing, LLC and FPL Energy Stateline II, Inc. (collectively, the NextEra Sellers) submitted a report and motion to accept the report out of time regarding wholesale sales of electric energy. In the report, the NextEra Sellers described a bilateral spot market transaction executed on August 31, 2022, via an independent broker with Shell Energy North America (US), LP for the sale of 240 megawatt-hours of power sourced from the Stateline II wind-powered generating facility. The NextEra Sellers explained that the sales were priced at the weighted average price of the Mid-Columbia Peak index plus a three-dollar adder, resulting in a total price that exceeded the soft price cap established by the Commission. In the report, NextEra Sellers asserted that the sales were justified under an index-based framework, arguing the specified index price accurately portrayed market conditions and met adequate liquidity standards. Agenda item E-14 may be an order regarding the report.
E-15 – BP Energy Company (Docket No. ER23-2982-000). On September 29, 2023, BP Energy Company (BP Energy) filed a report regarding a spot market sale of electricity. In the report, BP Energy provided information relating to a spot market sale executed on August 15, 2023, for delivery on August 16, 2023, at the Mid-Columbia trading hub in the WEC region that exceeded the soft price cap established by the Commission. BP Energy asserted that the sale was justified under an index-based framework, explaining that the transaction was priced at the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) day-ahead price during a period of record-breaking heat in the Pacific Northwest. BP Energy noted the ICE Mid-Columbia Peak index had a weighted average price of $976.38 per megawatt-hour on the trade date, arguing this specified index met conditions for adequate liquidity with a daily volume of 5,200 megawatt-hours across 13 trades. Agenda item E-15 may be an order regarding the report.
E-16 – Basin Electric Power Cooperative (Docket No. EL26-62-000). On April 30, 2026, Basin Electric Power Cooperative (Basin Electric) submitted a petition for declaratory order, pursuant to section 219 of the FPA. In the petition, Basin Electric requested authorization for transmission incentive rates and treatments regarding its investments in the development of two new 345 kilovolt transmission lines. Basin Electric sought the recovery of 100 percent of all prudently incurred development and construction costs if the projects are abandoned or cancelled for reasons beyond management control, along with the use of a hypothetical capital structure of 50 percent debt and 50 percent equity for a 30-year term. Basin Electric explained that SPP granted approval to the projects as reliability network upgrades through its 2024 Integrated Transmission Planning assessment process, and that the requested incentives are narrowly tailored to address demonstrable permitting, construction, and financing risks. Agenda item E-16 may be an order regarding the petition.
E-17 – Appalachian Power Company (Docket Nos. ER17-405-000, ER17-406-000, EL26-56-000). On March 17, 2026, American Municipal Power, Inc. (AMP) submitted a formal challenge and complaint against the American Electric Power East Companies (AEP East), pursuant to sections 206, 306, and 309 of the FPA. In the filing, AMP challenged the net operating loss adjustments for accumulated deferred income tax for net operating loss carryforwards included in the 2025 annual updates. AMP alleged that AEP East used a separate return method that contravened the Stand-Alone Method required by the Commission and improperly relied on retail Private Letter Rulings (PLRs) issued by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). AMP noted that the adjustments artificially inflated the overall gross annual transmission revenue requirements in the AEP East zone by $32,331,730 and requested the Commission reject the adjustments or establish a refund effective date. On April 7, 2026, Old Dominion Electric Cooperative filed comments in support of the complaint, arguing that the retail PLRs were generated under materially different circumstances and should not justify the adjustments. On April 7, 2026, AEP East submitted an answer, stating that the pleading constituted an impermissible collateral attack barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel because the Commission previously approved identical adjustments to avoid an IRS normalization violation. Agenda item E-17 may be an order regarding the formal challenge and complaint.
Hydro
H-1 – Categorical Exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act for Certain Terminations or Revocations of Water Power Licenses or Exemptions (Docket No. RM26-7-000). On February 19, 2026, the Commission issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) with respect to a categorical exclusion for certain terminations or revocations of water power licenses and exemptions. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to amend section 380.4 of its regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act to expand an existing categorical exclusion (CE) to include terminations or revocations that will result in minor or no ground disturbing activity and minor or no changes in reservoir conditions and downstream flows. A number of entities and interested parties filed comments during the ensuing period. On March 19, 2026, New York Rivers United submitted comments, stating that the Commission should proceed cautiously and preserve the ability to conduct site-specific environmental reviews where project infrastructure, dam safety conditions, land ownership, or changes in river management present broader public interest concerns. On March 26, 2026, The Nature Conservancy submitted comments in opposition to the NOPR, raising the prospect that the CE would provide a pathway for licensees to abandon hydropower dams and inappropriately shift the risks and obligations associated with caretaking to states and local communities. On March 26, 2026, Patriot Hydro, LLC filed comments in support of the NOPR, urging the Commission to extend the CE to voluntary surrenders of hydroelectric facilities meeting the same environmental criteria in order to enhance administrative efficiency. Agenda item H-1 may be a final rule regarding the NOPR.
H-2 – Order Adopting Categorical Exclusions from Tennessee Valley Authority under the National Environmental Policy Act (Docket No. CX26-2-000). Agenda item H-2 may be an action that is being taken sua sponte by the Commission in order to issue an order adopting categorical exclusions from Tennessee Valley Authority under the National Environmental Policy Act.
H-3 – Appalachian Power Company (Docket No. P-2514-209). On February 28, 2022, Appalachian Power Company (Appalachian) filed an application for a new license for the 30.1-megawatt Byllesby-Buck Hydroelectric Project located on the New River in Carroll County, Virginia. In the license application, Appalachian proposed to continue the existing run-of-river mode of operation and modernize the project by replacing three of four turbine-generator units at the Byllesby development and two of three turbine-generator units at the Buck development to increase average annual generation by 25,927 megawatt-hours. On February 28, 2023, Appalachian submitted an amended final license application. On December 19, 2024, the Commission issued an Environmental Assessment (EA), finding that issuing a license with staff-recommended measures would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. On January 31, 2025, Appalachian filed a response to the EA, requesting the Commission reconsider draft license articles by allowing the implementation of existing national guidelines for bald eagle protection, striking the Virginia spiraea protection plan requirement due to a lack of verified historical documentation, and excluding the transmission line corridor from tree clearing restrictions for bat protection. On April 30, 2026, the Commission issued a letter requesting Appalachian file additional information regarding proposed changes to the Clean Water Act section 401 water quality certification issued by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (Virginia DEQ). On May 6, 2026, Appalachian submitted a notice of modification to the water quality certification, providing the minor modification issued by Virginia DEQ containing typographic corrections and clarifications to special conditions relating to the monitoring equipment of the project. Agenda item H-3 may be an order regarding the license application.
Certificates
C-1 – Leaf River Energy Center LLC (Docket No. CP26-17-000). On October 31, 2025, Leaf River Energy Center LLC (LREC) filed an abbreviated application for an amendment to its Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) and the reaffirmation and granting of market-based rate (MBR) authority. In the CPCN application, LREC requested authorization to increase the certificated natural gas storage capacity at its existing New Home Salt Dome storage facility in Smith, Jasper, and Clarke Counties in Mississippi by 17.62 billion cubic feet as well as to increase the working gas capacity of existing Caverns 2 and 4 by 2.55 billion cubic feet each via solution mining under gas, develop a new salt dome storage cavern identified as Cavern 5 with 12.52 billion cubic feet of working gas capacity, construct a utility service corridor including 16- and 24-inch-diameter gas pipeline headers, and install two new gas-powered centrifugal compressors totaling 27,010 horsepower at the existing compression facility along with a 6,130-horsepower gas-powered centrifugal compressor at the existing booster station. LREC also sought the reaffirmation of its MBR authority for its existing firm and interruptible storage services, storage derivative hub services, and interruptible wheeling services, alongside new market-based rate authority for a proposed firm wheeling service. Between January 20, 2026 and March 27, 2026, the Commission issued multiple supplemental information requests to assist in the analysis of the proposal, to which LREC submitted corresponding responses and supplemental geological, environmental, and engineering data through May 12, 2026. On February 10, 2026, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 filed comments on the notice of scoping, recommending that the environmental review address the total emissions of the project and their effects on air quality. On May 1, 2026, the Commission issued the Environmental Assessment, finding that approval of the project would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. On May 13, 2026, the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma submitted comments, concurring with the finding of no historic properties affected. Agenda item C-1 may be an order regarding 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
