Summaries of the agenda items for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's monthly open meeting to be held on June 18, 2026, pursuant to the sunshine notice released on June 11, 2026.
Electric
E-1 – Interconnection of Large Loads to the Interstate Transmission System (Docket No. RM26-4-000). On October 27, 2025, the Secretary of Energy submitted a letter and Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR), pursuant to section 403 of the Department of Energy Organization Act, directing the Commission to initiate a rulemaking proceeding to accelerate the interconnection of large loads. In the ANOPR, the Department of Energy (DOE) asserted that the Commission has jurisdiction over the interconnection of large loads directly to the interstate transmission system, noting that the sheer magnitude and speed of data center development and artificial intelligence technologies have outpaced existing state-level regulatory regimes. To address this dislocation, the DOE proposed a framework of principles for new and co-located hybrid facilities of 20 megawatts or greater, including standardizing study deposits, readiness requirements, and withdrawal penalties; studying load facilities concurrently with generating facilities; assigning 100 percent of associated network upgrade costs to the interconnecting load; and expediting the study process to 60 days for loads that agree to be flexible and curtailable. On October 27, 2025, the Commission issued a notice soliciting comments on the ANOPR.
On November 21, 2025, approximately 175 entities filed respective initial comments regarding the ANOPR. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) clarified its statutory authority over users of the bulk power system and detailed its ongoing Large Loads Action Plan to evaluate potential updates to registry criteria and reliability standards. Hyperscale technology companies, including Meta Platforms, Inc. (Meta), Microsoft Corporation (Microsoft), OpenAI Inc. (OpenAI), and Google LLC (Google), broadly supported expedited study processes for large loads and hybrid facilities. Meta cautioned against adopting binding, detailed rules, recommending instead that the Commission issue guidance and best practices to avoid hindering private sector innovation, while urging an increase of the applicability threshold to 75 megawatts or higher. Microsoft and OpenAI supported establishing expedited pathways for curtailable loads and hybrid facilities, with OpenAI additionally proposing a fast-track process for nationally important projects exceeding 250 megawatts designated by DOE. Google urged the Commission to prioritize the integration of co-located generation and load, advocating for studies based on actual requested withdrawal rights and recommending the implementation of standardized study deposits and minimum charges similar to its state-level Capacity Commitment Frameworks. Regional Transmission Organizations, including PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO), and Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP), favored regional flexibility and cautioned against a uniform federal mandate. PJM questioned whether the theoretical benefits of a federally regulated large load queue would outweigh the complex jurisdictional and implementation challenges, noting that existing dockets such as EL25-49 may already address many of the ANOPR principles regarding hybrid facilities. MISO argued that standardizing load interconnections based on the generator interconnection model would introduce delays and speculative requests, emphasizing the success of its existing Expedited Project Review and Expedited Resource Addition Study processes. SPP requested deference to its own pending High Impact Large Load (HILL) and HILLGA proposals, arguing that a 20-megawatt threshold is inappropriate and asserting that the Commission must ensure full injection and withdrawal impacts are studied to protect grid reliability. Utilities and transmission owners, including the Indicated PJM Transmission Owners, the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), Duke Energy Corporation (Duke Energy), and the Electric Power Supply Association (EPSA), offered differing perspectives on the scope of the proposed reforms. The Indicated PJM Transmission Owners argued that the applicability threshold should be raised to 200 megawatts and strictly limited to data centers, strongly opposing the direct assignment of 100 percent of network upgrade costs in favor of traditional rolled-in rate treatment, and objecting to granting load customers an option to build transmission due to reliability concerns. EEI similarly recommended raising the default threshold to at least 100 megawatts, asserting that co-located loads must pay for transmission and ancillary services on a gross basis to avoid shifting costs to existing retail customers, and urging the Commission to protect existing state-regulated retail service frameworks. Duke Energy argued that any standardized large load interconnection procedures should strictly apply only where transmission service is unbundled, while EPSA strongly supported the assertion of Commission jurisdiction to standardize opaque, unfiled transmission owner processes. Industrial Customer Organizations (comprising the Industrial Energy Consumers of America, the American Forest & Paper Association, the PJM Industrial Customer Coalition, and the Coalition of MISO Transmission Customers) filed joint comments opposing the 20-megawatt threshold as arbitrary and overly broad. The coalition argued that mandating 100 percent network upgrade cost responsibility for all large loads would financially devastate traditional manufacturers, and instead proposed an elective "XL Connect" fast-lane process for large loads willing to bear heightened costs and provide flexibility. A coalition of Public Interest Organizations (PIOs) supported the assignment of 100 percent of network upgrade costs to interconnecting large loads to prevent unjust cost shifts to existing ratepayers, while strongly opposing allowing existing generation facilities to suspend service to the broader market to serve new large loads. State, federal, and reliability entities addressed jurisdictional and reliability boundaries. Governor Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania and Governor Glenn Youngkin of Virginia filed joint comments supporting the ANOPR framework but urged the Commission to develop national standards for regional load forecasts to prevent overbuilding driven by duplicative interconnection requests. The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) asserted that the Commission must expressly disclaim jurisdiction over end-use sales, emphasizing that retail load interconnections fall squarely within the exclusive jurisdiction of state energy regulatory authorities.
On December 5, 2025, numerous stakeholders filed respective reply comments. Hyperscale developers and industry groups, including Google, OpenAI, and the Data Center Coalition (DCC), reiterated the national security and economic imperatives of rapidly deploying artificial intelligence infrastructure. Google and OpenAI advocated for technology-neutral expedited pathways for co-located generation, electrically proximate resources, and highly flexible loads, arguing such configurations maximize existing infrastructure and mitigate reliability risks. DCC strongly urged the Commission to incorporate explicit grandfathering protections for projects in advanced development and requested immediate action to resolve the regulatory uncertainty surrounding hybrid facilities in pending PJM dockets. State regulatory representatives, including NARUC and the Virginia State Corporation Commission (VSCC), reiterated strong opposition to the Commission asserting jurisdiction over retail load interconnections, arguing such an action would precipitate protracted litigation and delay. To achieve the goals of the ANOPR while maintaining legal durability, NARUC and VSCC proposed a cooperative federalism approach where the Commission establishes minimum standards for large load interconnections that are subsequently implemented through state-jurisdictional tariffs, and both requested that the Commission convene a technical conference to develop a consensus. The Independent Market Monitor for PJM (IMM) supported establishing a load queue limited to data centers of five megawatts or greater, but argued that the primary driver of market dislocation is generation adequacy rather than transmission access. The IMM strongly opposed the co-location model and curtailable load frameworks, asserting that such mechanisms rely on illusory demand response strike prices, undermine competitive wholesale markets, and improperly shift reliability costs and risks to ratepayers.
On December 11, 2025, PJM filed reply comments providing a progress update on its generation interconnection queue reforms. PJM noted that it processed approximately 140 gigawatts of generator interconnection requests during the first 18 months of its transition period and highlighted the recent execution of its Reliability Resource Initiative, which advanced 51 projects representing 9.3 gigawatts of unforced capacity to Transition Cycle No. 2. On March 20, 2026, NERC submitted a supplement detailing an accelerated large load action plan, stating its intent to issue a Level 3 Alert in early May 2026 (note: the Level 3 Alert was issued on May 4, 2026) and to file revised registry criteria and Reliability Standards by December 31, 2026. On April 7, 2026, Public Citizen, Inc. filed comments supporting a temporary moratorium on new data center interconnections until the issues raised in the NERC Level 3 Alert are resolved.
On April 16, 2026, the Commission issued an Order Regarding Intent to Act. The Commission stated its intent to issue a legally durable order addressing the ANOPR by the end of June 2026, noting meaningful progress in other dockets but acknowledging that further action is warranted. The Commission clarified that its ongoing efforts should not discourage public utilities from making related filings under section 205 of the Federal Power Act. Agenda item E-1 may be a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking or an order on the interconnection of large loads.
E-2 – PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (Docket Nos. EL25-49-002, EL25-49-000, AD24-11-001, EL25-20-001, ER26-1479-000). On December 18, 2025, the Commission issued an order on a show cause proceeding regarding large loads co-located at generating facilities within the PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) footprint. In the order, the Commission found the existing PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff to be unjust and unreasonable due to a lack of standardized rules for large-scale behind-the-meter generation configurations, and directed PJM to create a transparent framework for netting generation against load and to implement distinct transmission services ensuring co-located facilities pay for actual grid utilization. On January 16, 2026, and January 20, 2026, multiple entities, including the Indicated PJM Transmission Owners, Constellation Energy Generation, LLC (Constellation), Eolian, L.P. and Antora Energy LLC, a coalition comprising the PJM Industrial Customer Coalition and Industrial Energy Consumers of America, and Earthjustice, filed respective requests for rehearing and clarification of the December 2025 order.
On February 23, 2026, PJM submitted a compliance filing proposing substantial tariff revisions to govern behind-the-meter generation and transmission services for co-located load. PJM established a uniform materiality threshold capping retail behind-the-meter generation at a cumulative nameplate rating of 50 megawatts, exempting on-site emergency backup generation and permanently grandfathering qualifying facilities and facilities operating under a contractual arrangement in effect prior to December 18, 2025. PJM proposed replacing the term Point of Interconnection with Point of Change in Ownership in the definition of co-located load to govern eligibility for the new transmission services. On February 23, 2026, PJM filed an initial brief for the paper hearing proposing non-rate terms and conditions for Interim Network Integration Transmission Service, Firm Contract Demand Transmission Service, and Non-Firm Contract Demand Transmission Service. PJM proposed an effective date of June 1, 2029, for the new transmission services and established operational penalties for unreserved use, including disqualification for customers failing to follow curtailment instructions. On February 23, 2026, PJM filed a supplemental informational report regarding the timeline for developing a reliability backstop procurement mechanism to address generation shortfalls resulting from large load interconnections.
On March 9, 2026, PJM filed a second supplemental informational report providing a progress update on stakeholder deliberations for the reliability backstop procurement mechanism. On March 16, 2026, multiple entities, including Vistra Corp. (Vistra), Constellation, and a coalition comprising the PJM Industrial Customer Coalition, Industrial Energy Consumers of America, American Forest and Paper Association, and the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Industrials and Amtrak), filed respective protests and comments regarding the February 2026 compliance filing. Vistra and Constellation contended that the revised definition of co-located load contradicts the December 2025 order and enables transmission owners to discriminatorily manipulate facility ownership boundaries to prevent load from qualifying. Vistra argued that the compliance filing lacks a transition mechanism for in-progress necessary studies, relies on an unjustifiable effective date of June 1, 2029, and contains impermissibly vague capacity interconnection rights reduction calculations. Constellation and the Industrials and Amtrak protested the 50-megawatt retail behind-the-meter generation threshold. Constellation asserted the threshold is too broad and creates a favored class of resources, while the Industrials and Amtrak argued the threshold is arbitrarily low and should be raised to at least 200 megawatts, proposing that netting eligibility apply up to the threshold amount rather than serving as an absolute disqualification.
On March 25, 2026, multiple entities filed respective response briefs regarding the PJM initial brief. The Data Center Coalition argued that the PJM proposal fails to preserve the value of co-location, unnecessarily restricts the use of non-firm service, and lacks a workable pathway for phased load ramping. The Indicated PJM Transmission Owners supported the framework but requested clarification that transmission owner load integration studies must be completed first, and proposed specific escalating financial penalties for unreserved transmission use. The Independent Market Monitor for PJM supported the June 1, 2029 implementation date, arguing that interim and non-firm services create significant reliability risks and asserting that all customers should pay for full network service to share the costs of the transmission system. On April 24, 2026, multiple entities filed respective reply briefs. PJM defended its strict limitations on non-firm service and its non-monetary disqualification penalties as necessary to protect system reliability, but proposed tariff revisions to afford PJM discretion if a customer is not at fault for a control technology misoperation or curtailment failure. The Maryland Office of People's Counsel protested the PJM proposed terms and conditions, arguing that the filing fails to address how capacity from existing generators shifting to serve co-located load will be replaced without shifting massive costs to existing ratepayers in the base residual auction or the planned reliability backstop procurement.
On April 21, 2026, April 28, 2026, and April 30, 2026, multiple entities, including a coalition comprising the PJM Industrial Customer Coalition, Industrial Energy Consumers of America, and the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, as well as Exelon Corporation, filed respective petitions for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit regarding the December 2025 order. On April 30, 2026, American Transmission Systems, Incorporated, Jersey Central Power & Light Company, Mid-Atlantic Interstate Transmission LLC, Keystone Appalachian Transmission Company, The Potomac Edison Company, Monongahela Power Company, and Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Company filed a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit regarding the December 2025 and February 2026 orders. On May 20, 2026, PJM filed a third supplemental informational report. PJM stated its Board of Managers extended the scope of its Critical Issue Fast Path process to combine the reliability backstop procurement and connect and manage frameworks, planning to finalize a comprehensive proposal by the end of June 2026 to procure any capacity shortfall in September 2026. Agenda item E-2 may be an order regarding the compliance filings, paper hearing initial briefs, and requests for rehearing.
E-3 – Public Service Company of New Mexico (Docket No. ER23-313-000). On October 31, 2022, Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) submitted a cost justification filing for wholesale spot market sales that exceeded the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) $1,000/MWh soft price cap during a September 2022 extreme heat event. In the cost justification filing, PNM argued that the sales were justified under the index-based and opportunity cost frameworks, asserting that the transaction prices were consistent with the prevailing Intercontinental Exchange index at the Palo Verde hub and that it declined alternative sales into the California Independent System Operator market. PNM further asserted that the Mobile-Sierra doctrine presumes such freely negotiated bilateral wholesale energy contracts are just and reasonable, noting that specific premiums were the result of preexisting contractual arrangements. On November 18, 2022, Southern California Edison Company (SCE) filed a protest requesting that the Commission reject the justification and order refunds. SCE argued that PNM failed to demonstrate sufficient index liquidity at the specific time of the transactions and did not provide adequate details regarding alternative sale opportunities. SCE contended that cost justifications should not rely on indices containing transactions still under Commission review and asserted that the Mobile-Sierra doctrine does not excuse sellers from regulatory cost justification obligations. On December 19, 2022, PNM filed an answer requesting that the Commission deny the protest and submitted a supplement to the cost justification filing. PNM argued that the protest constitutes an impermissible collateral attack on established Commission guidance regarding index liquidity standards, reiterated its opportunity cost evidence, and asserted that SCE was not a party to the transactions. PNM supplemented the transaction data to remove two term-forward sales, clarifying that the multi-month delivery transactions do not meet the Commission definition of spot market sales requiring justification. Agenda item E-3 may be an order on the cost justification filing.
E-4 – El Paso Electric Company (Docket No. ER23-340-000). On October 28, 2022, El Paso Electric Company (El Paso Electric) submitted a motion to accept a report out of time and a cost justification filing for spot market sales that exceeded the WECC $1,000/MWh soft price cap during a September 2022 extreme heat event. In the cost justification filing, El Paso Electric argued that the sales were justified under the index-based framework, asserting that the transaction prices were consistent with the prevailing Intercontinental Exchange index at the Palo Verde hub. El Paso Electric contended that a small premium above the index price reflected prevailing market fundamentals and noted that it also purchased power above the soft price cap during the same period. On November 29, 2022, Southern California Edison Company (SCE) and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) filed a joint motion to intervene out of time and a protest requesting that the Commission reject the justification and order refunds. SCE and PG&E argued that El Paso Electric failed to demonstrate sufficient index liquidity at the specific time of the transactions and asserted that cost justifications should not rely on indices containing transactions still under Commission review. SCE and PG&E contended that the index-based framework does not justify markups exceeding the average index price and argued that all short-term sales should be subject to the cost justification requirements regardless of the exact execution timeframe. Agenda item E-4 may be an order on the cost justification filing.
E-5 – Townsite Solar, LLC (Docket No. ER23-312-000). On October 31, 2022, Townsite Solar, LLC (Townsite) submitted a cost justification filing for spot market sales that exceeded the WECC $1,000/MWh soft price cap during a September 2022 extreme heat event. In the cost justification filing, Townsite argued that the sales were justified under the index-based framework, asserting that the transaction prices were consistent with the prevailing Intercontinental Exchange index at the Mead hub. Townsite contended that its back-to-back sales and purchase-and-resales made pursuant to an energy management agreement warrant special consideration, arguing that the Commission should decline to order refunds or apply a uniform refund threshold to both its sales and purchases. On November 18, 2022, and November 21, 2022, Southern California Edison Company (SCE) and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) filed respective protests requesting that the Commission reject the justification and order refunds. SCE argued that Townsite failed to demonstrate sufficient index liquidity at the specific time of the transactions and asserted that cost justifications should not rely on indices containing transactions still under Commission review. SCE contended that the sales do not qualify as sleeve transactions because they were executed under an existing energy management agreement without adequate documentation. CPUC requested that the Commission clarify that spot market sales executed prior to weekends and holidays remain subject to the soft price cap, urged the consolidation of all September 2022 heat wave justification proceedings, and requested the denial of confidential treatment for information publicly available in electric quarterly reports. On December 19, 2022, Townsite filed an answer requesting that the Commission deny the protests and submitted a supplemental report to the cost justification filing. Townsite argued that the protests constitute impermissible collateral attacks on established Commission guidance regarding index liquidity standards and requested the dismissal of its cost justification filing if the Commission determines that sales made pursuant to a long-term energy management agreement fall outside the scope of the spot market. Townsite supplemented the initial submission with additional day-ahead index data to justify its sales and provided a partially unredacted version of its initial filing. Agenda item E-5 may be an order on the cost justification filing.
E-6 – Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (Docket Nos. ER25-1886-000, ER25-1886-001). On April 4, 2025, the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO) submitted proposed tariff revisions to implement Demand Response and Emergency Resource Reforms to improve the real-time visibility and efficient procurement of Load Modifying Resources, Demand Response Resources, and other emergency-only resources. In the transmittal letter, MISO requested an effective date of September 1, 2027, explaining that the reforms include new participation options, refined measurement and verification baselines, a requirement for real-time availability data, periodic MISO-initiated testing, and an updated accreditation methodology based on resource availability during periods of highest system risk. On May 5, 2025, multiple entities, including ALLETE, Inc. d/b/a Minnesota Power (Minnesota Power) and American Municipal Power, Inc. (AMP), filed respective protests and comments regarding the proposed revisions. Minnesota Power argued that the proposed reforms are incompatible with the existing tariff and should be evaluated alongside MISO's forthcoming Direct Loss of Load Demand filing, asserting that the new 30-minute response requirement would compromise industrial safety and erode the value proposition for industrial demand response customers. AMP protested the one-year lookback period for Behind-the-Meter Generation as arbitrary compared to the three-year lookback applied to other resources, arguing that the definitions of Load Modifying Resource-Type I and Type II fail to accommodate resource structures other than outright ownership. On June 26, 2025, MISO filed an answer defending the one-year lookback period as necessary to strongly incentivize availability during emergencies and defending the 30-minute response requirement as necessary to ensure reliability during rapidly escalating events, noting that approximately half of emergency alerts have less than one hour of lead time. MISO committed to clarify specific tariff provisions regarding the rescheduling of tests, the required level of demand reduction during testing, and the restrictions on switching between emergency and non-emergency participation if directed by the Commission. On September 8, 2025, the Commission issued a deficiency letter requesting additional information regarding the proposed testing frequencies. On September 26, 2025, MISO submitted a deficiency response clarifying the distinction between Demand Resources subject to annual MISO-initiated testing and those subject to testing once every three years based on their selected measurement and verification baseline. On October 17, 2025, a coalition of Midwest TDUs (comprising Great Lakes Utilities, Madison Gas and Electric Company, Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission, Missouri River Energy Services, and WPPI Energy) filed a protest regarding the deficiency response. The coalition argued that MISO failed to modify its proposed tariff language to reflect its intended clarifications regarding testing frequency, leaving the tariff language ambiguous and potentially subjecting all Demand Response Resources and Load Modifying Resource-Type I resources to the same testing interval regardless of the baseline selected. Agenda item E-6 may be an order regarding the proposed tariff revisions.
Miscellaneous
M-1 – Revisions to Financial Forms Reporting and Filing Requirements (Docket No. RM26-12-000). The docket is not yet populated. Agenda item M-1 may be an action that is being taken sua sponte by the Commission with respect to a new rulemaking proceeding relating to Revisions to Financial Forms Reporting and Filing Requirements.
Hydro
H-1 – Kinetic Energy Storage LLC (Docket No. P-15402-000). On May 5, 2025, Kinetic Energy Storage LLC submitted an application for a preliminary permit for the proposed Barber Springs Pumped Storage Project. In the application, Kinetic Energy Storage LLC proposed evaluating the feasibility of a 500-megawatt closed-loop pumped storage hydroelectric facility located in Lincoln County, New Mexico, comprising two roller-compacted concrete dams, an underground powerhouse, and up to 79 miles of transmission lines. On September 22, 2025, the Commission issued a notice of preliminary permit application accepted for filing and soliciting comments, motions to intervene, and competing applications. On November 14, 2025, through December 9, 2025, numerous entities, including the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, the United States Department of the Interior, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Town of Carrizozo, and dozens of unaffiliated individuals, filed respective comments, protests, and motions to intervene opposing the application. The Town of Carrizozo submitted a formal resolution opposing the project development. Dozens of residents of the White Oaks, Carrizozo, Capitan, and Ruidoso communities filed respective comments and requests for rehearing, arguing that the developer failed to provide adequate public notice of the proposed project through local newsletters or public bulletin boards, thereby denying local residents the opportunity to evaluate the impacts of the facility. On March 17, 2026, Kinetic Energy Storage LLC filed a preliminary permit progress report. Agenda item H-1 may be an order regarding the preliminary permit application.
Certificates
C-1 – Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Docket No. CP25-10-001). On October 29, 2024, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco) submitted an Application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN), pursuant to Sections 7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the regulations of the Commission, to construct and operate the Southeast Supply Enhancement Project. In the CPCN application, Transco proposed to construct approximately 54.9 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline, comprising the Eden Loop and Salem Loop in Virginia and North Carolina, and to add a net 209,607 horsepower of compression across four existing compressor stations to provide 1,596,900 dekatherms per day of incremental firm transportation capacity. Transco asserted the project is necessary to meet growing natural gas-fired power generation, commercial, residential, and industrial demand in the southeast United States, noting the execution of binding precedent agreements with twelve shippers for the full project capacity. On December 3, 2024, multiple entities, including Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC and Duke Energy Progress, LLC (the Duke Utilities) and Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc., filed respective motions to intervene and comments in support of the project. The Duke Utilities argued the incremental capacity is critical to facilitate the retirement of 8,400 megawatts of coal-fueled generation by 2035, maintain grid reliability, and meet carbon reduction targets mandated by North Carolina law. On December 6, 2024, Appalachian Voices filed comments with numerous signatories opposing the project and requesting the Commission prepare a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) rather than an Environmental Assessment (EA), arguing the project would harm local waterways.
On October 31, 2025, Commission staff issued the EA, concluding that approval of the project would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. On December 1, 2025, multiple entities, including Appalachian Voices, Sierra Club, the North Carolina General Assembly, and Protect Our Water Heritage Rights, filed respective comments on the EA opposing the application and reiterating requests for a comprehensive EIS. On December 22, 2025, a coalition comprising Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, 7 Directions of Service, Appalachian Voices, Katie Whitehead, and Robert McNutt filed a motion to lodge a report regarding the impacts of projected data center growth on power demand in the southeast. On December 29, 2025, and January 5, 2026, Transco and the Duke Utilities filed respective answers in opposition to the motion to lodge. On January 29, 2026, the Commission issued an order issuing CPCN and approving abandonment. On February 25, 2026, Commission staff issued a letter granting the request to commence construction of the project. On February 27, 2026, and March 2, 2026, Transco and a coalition comprising Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, Appalachian Voices, 7 Directions of Service, Katie Whitehead, Robert McNutt, and Sierra Club filed respective requests for rehearing of the January 2026 order. On April 10, 2026, Transco filed an answer responding to the request for rehearing filed by the coalition. On April 23, 2026, and April 24, 2026, the Sierra Club and the coalition filed respective motions for stay of the January 2026 order and the February 2026 notice to proceed with construction. Agenda item C-1 may be an order on the rehearing requests and motions for stay.
C-2 – Eastern Gas Transmission and Storage, Inc. (Docket No. CP25-528-000). On July 24, 2025, Eastern Gas Transmission and Storage, Inc. (EGTS) submitted an abbreviated application for a CPCN in order to construct and operate the Appalachian Reliability Project. In the application, EGTS proposed to construct approximately 3.9 miles of 30-inch-diameter pipeline in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, install additional compression at the existing Mullett and JB Tonkin Compressor Stations, construct the new Roaring Run metering and regulation station, and modify existing metering, regulation, and compressor facilities in Pennsylvania and Ohio to provide 550,000 dekatherms per day of incremental firm transportation capacity. Between July 2025 and September 2025, numerous entities, including the Marcellus Shale Coalition, the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry, Pipeliners Local Union 798, local municipalities, and state political representatives, filed respective comments in support of the project. The entities argued the project will enhance energy accessibility, bolster electric grid stability, and provide local workforce benefits. On October 3, 2025, multiple entities, including Protect PT and affected landowners operating the Graham Farm and Idle Creek Stable, filed respective comments opposing the project. Protect PT raised concerns regarding potential air quality degradation, noise emissions, and greenhouse gas cumulative impacts. The landowners cited potential disruptions to livestock operations, hay production, biosecurity protocols, and quarry access. Between August 2025 and March 2026, the Commission issued several respective data requests seeking additional environmental and engineering information to assist in the analysis of the project, to which EGTS submitted respective responses. On February 27, 2026, Commission staff issued an EA, concluding that approval of the project would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. On March 30, 2026, and March 31, 2026, multiple entities, including Our Children's Trust and the affected agricultural landowners, filed respective comments regarding the EA. Agenda item C-2 may be an order on the CPCN application.
C-3 – Cheniere Creole Trail Pipeline, L.P. (Docket No. CP26-52-000). On December 19, 2025, Cheniere Creole Trail Pipeline, L.P. (Creole Trail) submitted a Prior Notice Request for authorization to construct, own, and operate the Gillis Header Project. In the Prior Notice Request, Creole Trail proposed to construct an extension of the existing Gillis Compressor Station natural gas suction and discharge headers, including a 36-inch discharge header extension, two 42-inch suction header extensions, filter separators, and associated facilities within its authorized site in Beauregard Parish, Louisiana. Creole Trail asserted the project would afford access to additional natural gas supply and create redundancy for feeding the Sabine Pass Liquefaction Liquified Natural Gas Terminal, optimizing header capacity and compression from low-pressure sources without modifying the authorized peak capacity of 1.53 billion cubic feet per day. On January 14, 2026, and March 5, 2026, the Commission issued respective environmental information requests seeking additional information to assist in the analysis of the project. On January 26, 2026, and March 25, 2026, Creole Trail submitted respective responses to the environmental information requests. On February 23, 2026, Restore Explicit Symmetry To Our Ravaged Earth (RESTORE) filed comments in protest of the project. RESTORE requested the Commission address environmental effects regarding wildlife habitat, noise, air quality, and cumulative effects, and raised concerns regarding landowner notification and public outreach. On March 5, 2026, Creole Trail submitted a response to the comments and, in the alternative, a motion to dismiss and request for waiver. On April 8, 2026, Creole Trail submitted a revised response to an additional information request regarding site drainage. On April 21, 2026, Creole Trail submitted a request for the Commission to issue an order allowing construction. On April 22, 2026, Commission staff issued an EA, concluding that approval of the project would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Agenda item C-3 may be an order on the prior notice request.
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
