Below are brief summaries of the agenda items for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC or the Commission) open meeting to be held on July 16, at 10:00 a.m. ET.
The summaries below are based on publicly available information in the dockets listed on the FERC agenda at the time of publication. For ease of reference, a link to each lead docket on the meeting agenda has been included. The Commission may decide to remove any items from the meeting agenda at any time.
| Item No. | Docket No. | Company |
|---|---|---|
|
Administrative |
||
| A -1 | AD26-1-000 | Agency Administrative Matters |
| A- 2 | AD26-2-000 |
Customer Matters, Reliability, Security, and Market Operations
|
|
Electric |
||
| E - 1 | RD26-7-000 |
Reliability Standard(s) Pertaining to Computational Load Integration
Agenda item E-1 may be a new docket to require and evaluate NERC reliability standards pertaining to computational load integration in connection with NERC’s Large Loads Action Plan.
|
| E – 2 | AD26-10-000 |
Western Seams Coordination
Agenda item E-2 may be a new administrative docket regarding Western Seams Coordination, which may follow up on a FERC staff white paper issued in November 2025.
|
| E – 3 | ER16-1341-005 |
Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
In an order issued February 28, 2019, the Commission reversed a waiver it had granted to Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) involving Section I.7.1. of SPP’s Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT). The Commission directed SPP to refund the Attachment Z2 Credit Payment Obligations (CPO) it had collected from transmission customers between 2008 and 2015. The order further directed SPP to collect the revenues to fund such refunds from the entities to whom SPP had paid Attachment Z2 revenue credits during that period. On June 28, 2019, SPP filed a compliance report. SPP subsequently filed informational updates in 2022 and 2024.
On September 18, 2025, the Commission requested that SPP provide additional data via a compliance filing that “lists the recoupment amounts, including interest, owed by entities that received revenue credits for service taken during the refund period and the corresponding refund amounts plus interest that each entity that paid [CPOs] for service taken during the refund period will receive.” On November 3, 2025, SPP submitted a compliance filing in response to the Commission’s September 18, 2025, order.
Agenda item E-3 may be an order on SPP’s compliance filing. |
| E – 4 | EL26-40-000 |
Public Citizen, Inc. v. Public Service Electric and Gas Company
On January 14, 2026, Public Citizen, Inc. (Public Citizen) filed a complaint against the Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G). The complaint alleges PSE&G misled PJM about the extent of reconstruction needed for the Roseland-to-Pleasant Valley transmission project and asks FERC to establish a refund effective date and set the matter for hearing. PSE&G filed a motion to dismiss.
Agenda item E-4 may be an order on Public Citizen’s compliant and PSE&G’s motion to dismiss. |
| E – 5 | ER24-2776-002 |
Southern California Edison Company
On November 20, 2025, the Commission accepted, subject to a further compliance filing, the Order No. 2023 compliance filing submitted by Southern California Edison Company (SCE). The November 20 Order directed SCE to submit additional revisions to its Wholesale Distribution Access Tariff (WDAT) within 60 calendar days.
On January 20, 2026, SCE filed an amendment to its WDAT to comply with the Commission’s November 20, 2025, order.
Agenda item E-5 may be an order on SCE’s tariff amendment. |
| E - 6 | ER24-3032-001 |
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
On November 20, 2025, the Commission accepted, subject to a further compliance filing, the Order No. 2023 compliance filing submitted by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). The November 20 Order directed PG&E to submit additional revisions to its WDAT within 60 calendar days.
On January 20, 2026, PG&E filed an amendment to its WDAT to comply with the Commission’s November 20, 2025, order.
Agenda item E-6 may be an order on PG&E’s tariff amendment. |
| E – 7 | ER10-1391-004 |
San Diego Gas & Electric
On November 20, 2025, the Commission accepted, subject to a further compliance filing, the Order No. 2023 compliance filing submitted by San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E). The November 20 Order directed SDG&E to submit additional revisions to its WDAT within 60 calendar days.
On January 20, 2026, the SDG&E filed an amendment to its WDAT to comply with the Commission’s November 20, 2025, order.
Agenda item E-7 may be an order on SDG&E’s tariff amendment. |
| E – 8 | EL26-47-000 |
North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation v. Duke Energy Progress, LLC
On February 23, 2026, North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation (NCEMC) filed a complaint against Duke Energy Progress, LLC (DEP), alleging that DEP’s transmission formula rate in its OATT is unjust, unreasonable, and unduly discriminatory or preferential on its face and as applied by DEP with respect to the cost allocation of four network upgrade projects. On March 25, 2026, DEP filed an answer and motion to dismiss, arguing that NCEMC did not meet its Section 206 burden to demonstrate that DEP’s cost allocation is unjust or unreasonable. On the same day, Sierra Club and Southern Alliance for Clean Energy filed a protest, asking the Commission to deny the complaint.
On April 9, 2026, NCEMC filed an answer to the motion to dismiss and a request for leave to answer the protest of Sierra Club and Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, arguing that it is “unrefuted and undisputed that Duke planned the Four Upgrade Projects to benefit solar generators, including state-jurisdictional solar generators.” On April 27, 2026, DEP filed a motion for leave to answer and limited answer, arguing that NCEMC misstates or exaggerates the record and mischaracterizes Commission authority.
Agenda item E-8 may be an order on the complaint and motion to dismiss. |
| E – 9 |
|
Eagle Creek Reusens Hydro, LLC and Great Falls Hydroelectric Company
On September 3, 2021, Eagle Creek Reusens Hydro, LLC (Reusens) and Great Falls Hydroelectric Company (Great Falls) (together, Applicants) submitted for filing a proposed rate schedule (Reactive Rate Schedule) setting forth the revenue requirement Reusens’ 10 MW hydroelectric generation facility and Great Falls’ 10.95 MW hydroelectric generation facility for Reactive Supply and Voltage Control from Generation Sources Services (Reactive Supply Service). On November 2, 2021, the Commission accepted Applicants’ Reactive Rate Schedule for filing, and suspended it for a nominal period, to become effective October 1, 2021, subject to refund. The Commission also set the filing for hearing and settlement procedures. On July 26, 2022, Applicants filed the settlement.
On August 15, 2022, Monitoring Analytics, LLC, acting in its capacity as the Independent Market Monitor for PJM (IMM), filed comments opposing the settlement. On October 31, 2022, the administrative law judge reported the settlement to the Commission as contested.
On October 20, 2025, the Commission issued an order on the settlement, finding the settlement contested and requesting that applicants provide additional information addressing “whether the Facilities are operationally capable of providing Reactive Service in a manner that can be relied on by the Transmission Provider to maintain transmission voltages within appropriate limits.” Applicants filed a response on November 10, 2025. Monitoring Analytics, LLC filed comments on the response on November 21, 2025.
Agenda item E-9 may be an order on the settlement. |
| E – 10 |
|
Lakehurst Solar, L.L.C.
On December 28, 2020, Lakehurst Solar, L.L.C. (Lakehurst) submitted for filing a Reactive Rate Schedule setting forth the revenue requirement of its 9.6 MW solar generating facility for Reactive Supply Service. On December 29, 2020, PJM and the IMM separately moved to intervene in the proceeding. On February 26, 2021, the Commission accepted Lakehurst’s Reactive Rate Schedule for filing, and suspended it for a nominal period, to become effective January 1, 2021, subject to refund. The Commission also set the filing for hearing and settlement procedures. During the July 21, 2021, settlement conference, Lakehurst and Trial Staff reached a settlement in principle.
On September 7, 2021, the IMM submitted comments opposing the settlement and Trial Staff submitted initial comments in support of the settlement. Nonetheless, on October 21, 2021, the administrative law judge certified the settlement to the Commission.
On October 15, 2025, the Commission issued an order on the settlement, finding the settlement contested and requesting that Lakehurst provide additional information addressing “whether the Facility is operationally capable of providing Reactive Service in a manner that can be relied on by the Transmission Provider to maintain transmission voltages within appropriate limits.” Lakehurst filed a response on December 22, 2025.
Agenda item E-10 may be an order on the settlement. |
| E – 11 |
|
Oxbow Creek Energy LLC
On September 23, 2019, Oxbow Creek Energy LLC (Oxbow Creek) submitted for filing a Reactive Rate Schedule setting forth the revenue requirement of its 21.2 MW natural gas fired generating facility for Reactive Supply Service. On November 26, 2019, the Commission accepted Oxbow Creek’s Reactive Rate Schedule for filing, and suspended it for a nominal period, to become effective December 1, 2019, subject to refund. The Commission also set the filing for hearing and settlement procedures. On May 27, 2021, Oxbow Creek filed the settlement.
On June 16, 2021, Monitoring Analytics, LLC, acting in its capacity as the IMM, filed comments opposing the settlement. Nonetheless, on July 13, 2021, the administrative law judge certified the settlement to the Commission as uncontested.
On October 20, 2025, the Commission issued an order on the settlement, finding the settlement contested and requesting that Oxbow Creek provide additional information addressing “whether the Facility is operationally capable of providing Reactive Service in a manner that can be relied on by the Transmission Provider to maintain transmission voltages within appropriate limits.” Oxbow Creek filed a response on November 10, 2025. Monitoring Analytics, LLC filed comments on the response on November 21, 2025.
Agenda item E-11 may be an order on the settlement. |
| E - 12 | ER23-2121-000 |
Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold EnergyServices, LLC
On June 17, 2021, the Commission provided guidance for justifications of sales exceeding the Western Electric Coordinating Council (WECC) “soft cap” of $1,000/MWh. On June 12, 2023, Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Energy Services, LLC (FMES) submitted its justification for spot sales in the WECC region exceeding the soft cap during September 2022.
Agenda item E-12 may be an order on FEMS's justification for the September 2022 spot market sales. |
| E – 13 | ER23-2385-000 |
ConocoPhillips Company
On July 7, 2023, ConocoPhillips Company (ConocoPhillips) filed a report and cost justification for five sales made above the soft price cap between September 5 and 7, 2022 in the WECC geographic area. The sales were made pursuant to two energy management agreements, under which ConocoPhillips was buying power in order to meet the scheduled obligations of each generator. Agenda item E-13 may be an order on the cost justification filing. |
| E – 14 | ER23-2613-000 |
NextEra Energy Marketing, LLC
On August 8, 2023, NextEra Energy Marketing, LLC (NEM) and FPL Energy Stateline II, Inc. (Stateline II and NEM together, the NextEra Sellers), filed a report and cost justification for bilateral sales above the soft price cap during August and September 2022 in the WECC geographic area. The sales were made during a period of excessive heat wave warnings issued for the Pacific Northwest, California, and Oregon. Agenda item E-14 may be an order on the cost justification filing. |
| E – 15 | ER23-2982-000 |
BP Energy Company
On September 29, 2023, BP Energy Company filed a report and cost justification for a sale above the soft price cap in August 2023 in the WECC geographic area. The details of the cost justification filing contain proprietary and competitively sensitive information.
Agenda item E-15 may be an order on the cost justification filing.
|
| E – 16 | EL26-62-000 |
Basin Electric Power Cooperative
On April 30, 2026, Basin Electric Power Cooperative (Basin Electric) filed a request for declaratory order authorizing certain transmission incentive rates and treatments for Basin Electric’s development of two new 345 kilovolt transmission lines (the Burkley Project and the Patent Gate Project). Specifically, Basin Electric seeks (1) recovery of 100% of prudently incurred development and construction costs if the projects are abandoned or cancelled, in whole or part, for reasons beyond Basin Electric’s control; and (2) hypothetical capital structure of 50% debt and 50% equity for Basin Electric’s investment.
Agenda item E-16 may be an order on the request.
|
| E – 17 |
Appalachian Power Company; AEP Appalachian Transmission Company, Inc.; American Municipal Power, Inc. v. Appalachian Power Company Inc., et al. and AEP Appalachian Transmission Company Inc., et al.
This proceeding relates to a dispute regarding American Electric Power (AEP) (and related transmission companies) calculation of wholesale transmission formula rates. Most recently, on March 16, 2026, American Municipal Power, Inc. (AMP), filed a formal challenge and complaint alleging that AEP’s net operating loss carryforwards (NOLC) in its 2025 Annual Updates are based on an unsupported interpretation and improper application of Private Letter Rulings (PLRs) that the IRS issued to affiliates of AEP East, which result in unjust and unreasonable wholesale transmission rates. Agenda item E-17 may be a ruling on the challenge and complaint. |
|
|
Hydro |
||
| H – 1 | RM26-7-000 |
Categorical Exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act for Certain Terminations or Revocations of Water Power Licenses or Exemptions
On February 19, 2026, the Commission issued a proposed rulemaking to amend section 380.4 of its regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to expand an existing categorical exclusion (CE) to cover terminations or revocations of water power licenses and exemptions that would result in, at the most, limited changes to the environment. Agenda item H-1 may be related to this proposed rulemaking.
|
| H - 2 | CX26-2-000 |
Order Adopting Categorical Exclusions from Tennessee Valley Authority under the National Environmental Policy Act
Agenda item H-2 appears to relate to categorical exclusions for Tennessee Valley Authority under the National Environmental Policy Act.
|
| H – 3 | P-2514-209 |
Appalachian Power Company
On February 28, 2022, Appalachian Power Company (APC), a unit of American Electric Power, filed an application for a new major license for its Byllesby-Buck Hydroelectric Project located on the New River in Carroll County, Virginia.
Agenda item H-3 may be an order on APC’s application. |
|
Certificates |
||
| C – 1 | CP26-17-000 |
Leaf River Energy Center LLC
On October 31, 2025, Leaf River Energy Center LLC (LREC) filed an application requesting authorization for its Leaf River Capacity Expansion Project (LREC Project), which would increase the certificated natural gas storage capacity at its existing New Home Salt Dome storage facility in Smith, Jasper, and Clarke Counties, Mississippi by 17.62 billion cubic feet (Bcf). The environmental assessment for the LREC Project was issued on May 1, 2026.
Agenda item C-1 may be an order related to this application.
|
