Summaries of the agenda items for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s monthly open meeting to be held on May 21, 2026, pursuant to the sunshine notice released on May 14, 2026.
Electric
E-1 – Gaston Green Acres Solar, LLC and Bethel NC Hwy 11 Solar, LLC v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (Docket No. EL26-39-000). On January 8, 2026, Gaston Green Acres Solar, LLC (Gaston) and Bethel NC Hwy 11 Solar, LLC (Bethel) filed a complaint against PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act. In the complaint, Gaston and Bethel alleged that the PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff is unjust and unreasonable because it does not permit interconnection customers to withdraw from Transition Cycle No. 1 without forfeiting their Readiness Deposits following significant increases in allocated Network Upgrade costs between a Phase III System Impact Study and a final retool study. In the alternative, Bethel requested that the Commission direct PJM to issue a separate Generator Interconnection Agreement for the Bethel project, arguing it should not be treated as a single generating facility with its co-located base project, Pitt Solar, LLC (Pitt Solar). On January 28, 2026, PJM filed an answer requesting that the Commission deny the complaint. PJM argued that the complaint constitutes an untimely collateral attack on prior Commission orders approving the at-risk Readiness Deposit framework, which was designed to discourage late-stage withdrawals and prevent cost shifts to remaining projects. PJM further asserted that granting the alternative relief would violate the filed rate doctrine because the Bethel project was submitted and consistently studied as an uprate to Pitt Solar. Agenda item E-1 may be an order on the complaint.
E-2 – McKenzie Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Basin Electric Power Cooperative (Docket No. EL25-92-000). On June 10, 2025, McKenzie Electric Cooperative, Inc. (McKenzie) filed a complaint against Basin Electric Power Cooperative (Basin), pursuant to sections 306 and 309 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) and Rule 206 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. In the complaint, McKenzie alleged that Basin engaged in a nominal transaction to secure a $928,000 loan from the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) for the purpose of evading the jurisdiction of the Commission, arguing that such an action violates the public interest standard of FPA section 204. McKenzie requested that the Commission declare the transaction void for jurisdictional purposes and issue an emergency stay to prevent the loan from funding. On June 30, 2025, Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. (Tri-State) filed a motion to intervene and comments supporting the complaint, asserting that Basin withdrawing from Commission jurisdiction would perpetuate discriminatory rate practices and frustrate ongoing Commission investigations. Also on June 30, 2025, Basin filed an answer requesting that the Commission deny the complaint. Basin argued that receiving financing under the Rural Electrification Act statutorily exempts electric cooperatives from Commission regulation under FPA section 201(f) and asserted that the complaint constituted an improper collateral attack on its existing blanket authorization to issue securities. Subsequently, on September 29, 2025, and December 29, 2025, McKenzie and Basin filed joint requests to defer Commission action to finalize a tentative settlement. On January 13, 2026, Tri-State filed an answer opposing the deferral requests, arguing that a bilateral settlement cannot unilaterally resolve the jurisdictional and rate issues affecting other non-settling members. Agenda item E-2 may be an order on the complaint.
E-3 – System Energy Resources, Inc. (Docket No. ER22-24-004). On November 20, 2025, the Commission issued Opinion No. 593 regarding a formula rate proposal by System Energy Resources, Inc. (SERI). In the order, the Commission reversed an Initial Decision and accepted an Actuarial Method proposed by SERI to amend its Unit Power Sales Agreement (UPSA) to include prepaid or accrued pension costs in the cost-based formula rate for wholesale sales from the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station (Grand Gulf). The Commission found that SERI adequately demonstrated that the Actuarial Method produced the same result as the standard Cumulative Contributions Method. On December 22, 2025, the Arkansas Public Service Commission (Arkansas PSC) filed a request for rehearing of Opinion No. 593. Arkansas PSC argued that the Commission erred by approving the SERI proposal, contending that the conclusion was not supported by substantial evidence because SERI lacked the accounting records necessary to calculate cumulative contributions for the full history of Grand Gulf. Additionally, Arkansas PSC asserted that the Commission arbitrarily and capriciously allowed SERI to improperly treat recognized pension trust investment gains as employer contributions without demonstrating that SERI or its shareholders were actually out of pocket for those amounts. Agenda item E-3 may be an order on the request for rehearing.
E-4 – Gregory and Beverly Swecker (Docket No. EL24-6-001). On June 27, 2024, the Commission issued an order denying a data request petition filed by Gregory and Beverly Swecker (the Sweckers) against Midland Power Cooperative (Midland). In the order, the Commission denied the request from the Sweckers to compel Midland to provide data regarding its supplying utility, Central Iowa Power Cooperative (CIPCO), and the rate at which Midland purchases energy and capacity. The Commission found that Midland had already provided the necessary avoided cost data consistent with the regulations of the Commission under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA). On July 25, 2024, the Sweckers filed a request for rehearing of the June 2024 order. The Sweckers argued that the Commission erred in refusing to order Midland to provide the full avoided cost data, asserting that Midland failed to comply with the mandatory reporting requirements of PURPA. The Sweckers further alleged that the inaction of the Commission allowed Midland to engage in discrimination and non-payment for energy generated by the qualifying facility of the Sweckers, and contended that the denial by the Commission violated their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection. Additionally, the Sweckers cited recent United States Supreme Court precedent to argue against judicial deference to the Commission. Subsequently, on September 20, 2024, the Sweckers filed a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Agenda item E-4 may be an order on the rehearing request.
E-5 – Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (Docket No. ER26-407-001). On December 30, 2025, the Commission issued an order accepting tariff revisions proposed by Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) to create new pricing Subregions for the cost allocation of future transmission upgrades. In the order, the Commission accepted the SPP proposal to allocate a portion of the costs of future Base Plan Upgrades between 100 kilovolts and 300 kilovolts based on Subregions instead of existing transmission pricing zones, finding that the methodology satisfies the cost causation principle. On January 29, 2026, the Louisiana Public Service Commission (LPSC) and the City Utilities of Springfield, Missouri (CUS) filed respective requests for rehearing of the December 2025 order. LPSC and CUS argued that the Commission erred in approving the Subregional cost allocation proposal because SPP failed to provide a prospective cost and benefit analysis. Specifically, LPSC contended that the Commission improperly relied on historical integration data that fails to demonstrate that the specific customers bearing increased costs will receive corresponding benefits. Similarly, CUS alleged that the Commission ignored an expert witness declaration demonstrating that the CUS zone would incur a $1.5 million annual cost increase with no material change in benefits, arguing that the decision violates the Federal Power Act. On February 27, 2026, SPP filed an answer requesting that the Commission deny the respective requests for rehearing. SPP argued that an exacting future comparison of costs and benefits is not required for an ex ante cost allocation methodology and asserted that the substantial integration of facilities within the proposed Subregions provides an articulable and plausible basis to justify the cost shift. Agenda item E-5 may be an order on the respective requests for rehearing.
E-6 – Avangrid Renewables, LLC (Docket No. ER23-272-000). On October 28, 2022, Avangrid Renewables, LLC (Avangrid) submitted a cost justification filing for a spot market sale that exceeded the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) $1,000/MWh soft price cap during a September 2022 extreme heat event. In the justification filing, Avangrid asserted that the transaction was a credit sleeve executed at the request of a buyer, and that the premium charged above the soft price cap reflected a nominal fee to assume default risk. Avangrid further argued that the Mobile-Sierra doctrine presumes such bilaterally negotiated, short-term sales are just and reasonable, prohibiting the Commission from modifying or abrogating the contract terms without a showing of unequivocal public necessity. On November 18, 2022, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and Southern California Edison Company (SCE) filed respective protests requesting that the Commission reject the justification. CPUC and SCE argued that the Mobile-Sierra doctrine does not excuse Avangrid from its regulatory obligation to justify costs exceeding the soft price cap, asserting that the price cap acts as a pre-existing restriction on the market-based rate authority of Avangrid. Additionally, CPUC requested that the Commission consolidate the proceeding with other justification filings arising from the September 2022 heatwave, while SCE requested that the Commission order Avangrid to issue refunds for the costs exceeding the cap. Agenda item E-6 may be an order on the justification filing.
E-7 – bp Energy Company (Docket No. ER22-2316-000). On July 6, 2022, bp Energy Company (bp Energy) filed a motion for leave to file out of time and a cost justification report for spot market sales that exceeded the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) $1,000/MWh soft price cap during a June 2021 extreme heat event. In the report, bp Energy argued that the sales were justified under the index-based framework, demonstrating that the transaction prices were consistent with the prevailing Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) Palo Verde Day-Ahead index. Additionally, bp Energy asserted that the Mobile-Sierra doctrine presumes such freely negotiated, bilateral wholesale energy contracts are just and reasonable, prohibiting the Commission from modifying the pricing terms or ordering refunds without a showing of serious harm to the public interest. Agenda item E-7 may be an order on the cost justification report.
E-8 – Tucson Electric Power Company (Docket No. ER23-309-000). On October 31, 2022, Tucson Electric Power Company (Tucson Electric) submitted a 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 justification filing, Tucson Electric argued that the sales were justified under both the index-based and opportunity cost frameworks, asserting that the transaction prices were consistent with the prevailing Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) index at the Mead hub and that it declined higher-priced alternative sales. Tucson Electric further asserted that the Mobile-Sierra doctrine presumes such freely negotiated bilateral wholesale energy contracts are just and reasonable. 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 Tucson Electric failed to demonstrate sufficient index liquidity at the specific time of the transactions and did not provide adequate details regarding alternative sale opportunities. On November 21, 2022, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) filed a protest also requesting that the Commission order refunds. CPUC contended that Tucson Electric failed to satisfy the justification frameworks, asserted that the Mobile-Sierra doctrine does not excuse sellers from regulatory cost justification obligations, and requested the consolidation of all September 2022 heat wave justification proceedings. On December 6, 2022, Tucson Electric filed an answer requesting that the Commission deny the protests. Tucson Electric argued that the protests constitute impermissible collateral attacks on established Commission guidance regarding index liquidity standards and asserted that consolidation of the proceedings is inappropriate. Agenda item E-8 may be an order on the justification filing.
E-9 – Arizona Public Service Company (Docket Nos. ER23-271-000, ER23-271-001). On October 28, 2022, Arizona Public Service Company (APS) submitted a cost justification filing for 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 justification filing, APS argued that the sales were justified under the index-based framework, utilizing the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) day-ahead index at the Palo Verde hub and the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) real-time pre-dispatch index. On November 18, 2022, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and Southern California Edison Company (SCE) filed respective protests requesting that the Commission reject the justification and order refunds. CPUC and SCE argued that APS failed to adequately demonstrate 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. CPUC additionally contended that the use of the CAISO real-time pre-dispatch index was unwarranted and requested the consolidation of all September 2022 heat wave justification proceedings. On January 31, 2023, APS submitted a supplement to the justification filing to provide updated trading hub liquidity data inclusive of the month of the transactions and to report an additional day-ahead transaction. Also on January 31, 2023, APS filed an answer requesting that the Commission deny the respective protests. APS argued that a 90-day period is sufficient to demonstrate index liquidity under established Commission guidance and defended the use of the CAISO real-time pre-dispatch index as an accurate reflection of market conditions at the time of the real-time transactions. Agenda item E-9 may be an order on the justification filing.
Gas
G-1 – Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines (Docket No. RM96-1-044). On October 16, 2025, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) proposing to amend its regulations to incorporate by reference certain modifications to Version 4.0 of the Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines adopted by the Wholesale Gas Quadrant of the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB). In the NOPR, the Commission stated that the revisions streamline the process for accessing publicly available gas-electric coordination data during extreme cold weather or emergency events. Concurrently, Commissioner Judy W. Chang issued a concurring statement requesting stakeholder input on areas where additional improvements to gas-electric coordination and information sharing would be valuable. On January 20, 2026, multiple entities filed respective comments supporting the proposed standards, including the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA), the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the ISO/RTO Council (IRC), and a utility group consisting of National Grid USA, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc., Old Dominion Electric Cooperative, and Washington Gas Light Company (Utility Coalition). The Utility Coalition additionally requested that the Commission issue a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) to examine options under its existing authority to further support and maintain interstate natural gas pipeline service reliability. INGAA requested that the Commission expeditiously issue a final rule to avoid an implementation deadline during the winter heating period and to allow pipelines flexibility regarding the effective date. NERC and IRC both highlighted ongoing gas-electric coordination efforts and supported further discussions to improve situational awareness. Agenda item G-1 may be a final rule on the NOPR.
Hydro
H-1 – Sacramento Municipal Utility District (Docket No. P-2101-192). On November 26, 2025, the Commission issued an order modifying and approving the Slab Creek Whitewater Boating Recreation Management Plan for the Upper American River Hydroelectric Project. In the order, the Commission rejected a "daily average launches" trigger proposed by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) for determining user capacity exceedances that would require increased recreation streamflow release days, and instead imposed a "peak hour average launches" trigger set at 24 launches in a single hour. On December 29, 2025, SMUD filed a request for rehearing of the November 2025 order. SMUD argued that the Commission erred by imposing the hourly trigger, asserting that it is unsupported by substantial evidence because an hourly metric was never evaluated as an independent threshold during the underlying baseline monitoring. SMUD further contended that the record overwhelmingly demonstrates no capacity exceedances at the imposed threshold and that the Commission arbitrarily departed from its prior approval of a similar daily average launches trigger for the South Fork Silver Creek. Additionally, SMUD alleged that the mandated trigger could result in significant operational and financial impacts by erroneously tripling the required streamflow release days and significantly reducing critical hydropower generation. Agenda item H-1 may be an order on the request for rehearing.
Certificates
C-1 – Revisions to the Blanket Certificate Program (Docket No. RM25-12-001). On June 18, 2025, the Commission issued a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) to explore whether to revise its Part 157, Subpart F blanket certificate regulations to permanently adjust the cost limitations for projects that interstate natural gas pipelines may construct without a case-specific authorization order. In the NOI, the Commission sought stakeholder perspectives on updating the cost caps, noting that the limits had not been substantively revised beyond standard inflation adjustments since 2006. On September 24, 2025, multiple industry stakeholders, including the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA), Energy Transfer LP (Energy Transfer), TransCanada USA Pipeline Services LLC (TC Energy), and The Williams Companies, Inc. (Williams), filed respective comments supporting a permanent increase to the blanket certificate cost limits. INGAA proposed specific limit increases beginning in 2026: $36,000,000 for automatic authorization; $100,000,000 for prior notice; and $19,500,000 for storage. Energy Transfer emphasized that surging energy demand and rising construction costs necessitate the permanent limit increases, and further requested that the Commission provide project sponsors the option to request incremental rates for prior notice blanket projects to better align cost and revenue. On October 20, 2025, Energy Transfer filed supplemental comments reiterating support for the INGAA proposal. TC Energy asserted that the Commission should allow compression projects located within existing facility footprints to proceed under prior notice without a cost cap. TC Energy also urged the Commission to alter its regulations to stipulate that prior notice proceedings be converted to case-specific Natural Gas Act section 7 reviews only when protested by Commission staff, an affected landowner, or a party with a substantial economic interest. Williams strongly supported updating the cost limitations to align with current construction expenses and echoed the necessity of limiting protest eligibility to prevent parties without a direct interest from causing unnecessary regulatory delay. Also on September 24, 2025, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) filed a motion to intervene and comments opposing the INGAA proposals. EDF argued that the INGAA pipeline construction cost study was unreliable and that expanding the program without proper evidentiary support could harm ratepayers and the environment. Instead of a per-project limit, EDF proposed a cumulative dollar amount over a rolling three-year period capped at the higher of $60,000,000 or three percent of the net utility plant of a pipeline. Following the initial comment period, various entities, including the Natural Gas Supply Association, the American Gas Association, and the American Public Gas Association, filed respective reply comments between November 2025 and March 2026. Agenda item C-1 may establish a new sub-docket in this proceeding with respect to the blanket certificate program cost limitations.
C-2 – Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (Docket No. CP25-208-002). On April 14, 2025, the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) filed an emergency petition requesting a temporary waiver of the Part 157, Subpart F blanket certificate regulations of the Commission. In the petition, INGAA requested that the Commission double the cost limits for automatic authorization, prior notice, and storage field blanket certificate projects for a two-year period, citing an urgent nationwide need for enhanced natural gas infrastructure and an executive declaration of a national energy emergency. On May 9, 2025, former Chairman Mark C. Christie issued a letter to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior, Doug Burgum, responding to an April 30, 2025 letter Secretary Burgum sent to the Commission. Former Chairman Christie acknowledged the strong support of the Administration for the petition and emphasized his priority of removing barriers to the construction of natural gas infrastructure. On May 12, 2025, Secretary Burgum filed comments formally endorsing the INGAA petition as necessary to address the national energy emergency. On June 11, 2025, INGAA filed a letter modifying the emergency petition. INGAA withdrew its requests regarding automatic authorization and storage field projects, narrowed the petition to request a two-year waiver doubling only the prior notice cost limit from $41,100,000 to $82,200,000, and urged the Commission to initiate a Notice of Inquiry to assess a permanent revision to the blanket certificate cost limits. On June 12, 2025, Energy Transfer LP (Energy Transfer) filed comments supporting the petition, asserting that surging energy demand and rising construction costs necessitated making the increased limits permanent. On June 18, 2025, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), Public Citizen, Inc. (Public Citizen), and the Citizens Utility Board (CUB) filed a joint protest or, in the alternative, a motion requesting a technical conference. EDF, Public Citizen, and CUB argued that the petition was inconsistent with prior waiver precedent, effectively constituted a rulemaking petition requiring notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act, and failed to justify the arbitrary doubling of the limits. Also on June 18, 2025, the Commission issued an order granting in part the modified INGAA petition. The Commission waived its regulations on a temporary basis to increase the prior notice cost limit from $41,100,000 to $61,650,000 for projects constructed and placed in service by May 31, 2027. The Commission cited a pressing, nationwide demand for expanded natural gas transportation capacity and associated reliability concerns, and imposed additional accounting and reporting requirements for project sponsors utilizing the waiver. On July 18, 2025, Public Citizen filed a request for rehearing of the June 2025 order. Public Citizen argued that the Commission erred by failing to provide public notice and an opportunity for comment and by improperly relying on the national energy emergency declaration without a supportable basis. On October 20, 2025, the Commission issued an order addressing arguments raised on rehearing. The Commission modified the discussion from the June 2025 order but sustained the result, finding that the Commission was not required to provide notice and comment for the petition and that independent justifications, including reports from the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, supported the finding of good cause for the temporary waiver. Agenda item C-2 may establish a new sub-docket with respect to the temporary blanket certificate cost limit waiver.
C-3 – West Texas Gas Utility, LLC and Texas Pipeline Exports, LLC (Docket Nos. CP26-6-000, CP26-7-000, CP26-8-000). On October 10, 2025, West Texas Gas Utility, LLC (WTGU) and Texas Pipeline Exports, LLC (Texas Exports) filed a joint application pursuant to section 3 of the Natural Gas Act and Part 153 of the regulations of the Commission. In the application, WTGU and Texas Exports requested authorization to transfer to Texas Exports the section 3 authorizations and Presidential Permits previously issued to WTGU for three border-crossing natural gas pipeline facilities located at the United States-Mexico border in Val Verde and Maverick Counties, Texas. WTGU and Texas Exports stated that the proposed transfer will not affect existing service or require the construction of new facilities, noting that Texas Exports will succeed WTGU and continue to operate the existing export facilities following a recent sale of adjacent non-jurisdictional assets. On October 22, 2025, Commission staff issued the Environmental Assessment, concluding that no environmental impact would be involved with the approval of the proposal. On December 18, 2025, the Commission issued letters providing copies of the applications and proposed Presidential Permits to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of War for review and consideration. On April 6, 2026, the U.S. Department of State filed a response providing a favorable recommendation for the issuance of the Presidential Permits. On April 29, 2026, the U.S. Department of War filed comments stating no objection to the issuance of the proposed Presidential Permits. Agenda item C-3 may be an order on the joint application.
C-4 – Port Arthur Pipeline, LLC (Docket No. CP26-142-000). On March 20, 2026, Port Arthur Pipeline, LLC (PAPL) filed an abbreviated application for a limited amendment of its certificate of public convenience and necessity for the Louisiana Connector Project. In the application, PAPL requested that the Commission approve revised initial cost-based recourse rates for service, reflecting changes to the cost of construction of the project, and amend the certificate authority to reflect certain revisions to its approved pro forma tariff. PAPL stated that the amendment does not propose any changes to the project scope, facilities, purpose, or construction methods, and requested expedited approval to facilitate a target in-service date of June 1, 2026. On April 28, 2026, PAPL filed a request to place the project facilities in service. PAPL asserted that construction is mechanically complete for the 72.3-mile pipeline and associated compressor and meter stations, noting that line packing activities have concluded and an April 2026 Commission staff inspection found no deficiencies. Agenda item C-4 may be an order on the abbreviated application.
C-5 – Pine Prairie Energy Center, LLC (Docket Nos. CP25-533-000, CP11-1-000, CP04-379-002). On August 11, 2025, Pine Prairie Energy Center, LLC (Pine Prairie) filed an abbreviated application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) and for the amendment of existing certificates. In the application, Pine Prairie requested authorization to construct and operate its Phase IV Expansion Project at its existing natural gas storage facility in Evangeline Parish, Louisiana. Pine Prairie specifically requested to partially vacate prior certificate authority regarding unconstructed caverns and compressors, construct a new natural gas storage cavern, install a new 19,000-horsepower compressor unit and a 2.37-mile header loop pipeline, and restate its total certificated storage capacity to 87.2 billion cubic feet. On September 3, 2025, Ironworkers Local Union No. 623 filed comments supporting the project, emphasizing job creation and local economic benefits. On September 11, 2025, Our Children's Trust filed comments opposing the application, arguing that the expansion would exacerbate climate change and harm the health and welfare of youth. On October 17, 2025, the United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 6 (EPA Region 6) filed scoping comments requesting that the environmental review address the effects of the project on air quality and relevant mitigation measures, impaired waters under the Clean Water Act, and the possible presence of Polychlorinated Biphenyls. During the period from October 2025 through February 2026, Commission staff issued multiple environmental and engineering information requests, to which Pine Prairie submitted respective responses providing supplemental project details. On January 23, 2026, Commission staff issued the Environmental Assessment, concluding that approval of the project would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. On February 18, 2026, EPA Region 6 and the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas filed respective comments regarding the Environmental Assessment and cultural resources. EPA Region 6 recommended that the Environmental Assessment include a comprehensive Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan, the implementation of erosion and sediment control measures, and a map identifying all water segments with Assessment Unit Identifiers. The Alabama-Coushatta Tribe stated it had no objections, finding no evidence that the project area intersects with known cultural resources. On April 13, 2026, the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma filed comments concurring with the conclusion that the project would have no effect on historic properties. Agenda item C-5 may be an order on the CPCN application.
Chimera Thompson (Counsel, White & Case) contributed to the development of this publication.
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
