{"document":{"slug":"senate-ferc-oversight-20260722","filename":"senate-ferc-oversight-20260722.pdf","text_file":"senate-ferc-oversight-20260722.txt","title":"Senate oversight of FERC: testimony and questions for the record","url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-119shrg64322/pdf/CHRG-119shrg64322.pdf","issued":"2026-07-22","docket":"S. Hrg. 119-494","file":"sources/videos/hearings/senate-ferc-oversight-20260722.pdf","kind":"hearing transcript","group":"Congressional testimony","sha256":"02f808679f076ff8028daa99c2a1c50d08f574876fc46e9069f2e893bd0dfc1f","pages":117,"tokens":50221,"emptyPages":[]},"pages":[{"page":1,"startToken":0,"endToken":63,"text":"U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE\nWASHINGTON : \n64–322 \n2026 \nS. HRG. 119–494 \nOVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL ENERGY \nREGULATORY COMMISSION \nHEARING \nBEFORE THE \nCOMMITTEE ON \nENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES \nUNITED STATES SENATE \nONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS \nSECOND SESSION \nJULY 22, 2026 \n( \nPrinted for the use of the \nCommittee on Energy and Natural Resources \nAvailable via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov"},{"page":2,"startToken":63,"endToken":179,"text":"(II) \nCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES \nMIKE LEE, Utah, Chairman \nJOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming \nJAMES E. RISCH, Idaho \nSTEVE DAINES, Montana \nTOM COTTON, Arkansas \nDAVID MCCORMICK, Pennsylvania \nJAMES C. JUSTICE, West Virginia \nBILL CASSIDY, Louisiana \nCINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi \nLISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska \nJOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota \nMARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico \nRON WYDEN, Oregon \nMARIA CANTWELL, Washington \nMAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii \nANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine \nCATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada \nJOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, Colorado \nALEX PADILLA, California \nRUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona \nWENDY BAIG, Majority Staff Director \nCHRIS PRANDONI, Majority Deputy Staff Director and Chief Counsel \nJAKE MCCURDY, Majority Policy Director for Energy \nJASMINE HUNT, Minority Staff Director \nSAM E. FOWLER, Minority Chief Counsel \nANAIS BORJA, Minority Energy Policy Director"},{"page":3,"startToken":179,"endToken":412,"text":"(III) \nC O N T E N T S \nOPENING STATEMENTS \nPage \nLee, Hon. Mike, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from Utah ..................................\n1 \nHeinrich, Hon. Martin, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from \nNew Mexico ...........................................................................................................\n3 \nWITNESSES \nSwett, Hon. Laura, Chairman, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ...........\n4 \nRosner, Hon. David, Commissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ..\n9 \nSee, Hon. Lindsay, Commissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission .....\n14 \nChang, Hon. Judy, Commissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission .....\n18 \nLaCerte, Hon. David, Commissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission \n22 \nALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED \nChang, Hon. Judy: \nOpening Statement ...........................................................................................\n18 \nWritten Testimony ............................................................................................\n20 \nResponses to Questions for the Record ...........................................................\n103 \nHeinrich, Hon. Martin: \nOpening Statement ...........................................................................................\n3 \nKing, Jr., Hon. Angus S.: \nPhotograph of a carbon fiber-based conductor next to a conventional \nhigh-tension conductor .................................................................................\n62 \nLaCerte, Hon. David: ...............................................................................................\nOpening Statement ...........................................................................................\n22 \nWritten Testimony ............................................................................................\n24 \nResponses to Questions for the Record ...........................................................\n109 \nLee, Hon. Mike: \nOpening Statement ...........................................................................................\n1 \nRosner, Hon. David: \nOpening Statement ...........................................................................................\n9 \nWritten Testimony ............................................................................................\n11 \nResponses to Questions for the Record ...........................................................\n89 \nSee, Hon. Lindsay: \nOpening Statement ...........................................................................................\n14 \nWritten Testimony ............................................................................................\n16 \nResponses to Questions for the Record ...........................................................\n97 \nSwett, Hon. Laura: \nOpening Statement ...........................................................................................\n4 \nWritten Testimony ............................................................................................\n7 \nResponses to Questions for the Record ...........................................................\n83 \nWyoming Department of Agriculture: \nComments on the Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Draft Environmental \nImpact Statement .........................................................................................\n32 \nWyoming Department of Environmental Quality: \nComments on the Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Draft Environmental \nImpact Statement .........................................................................................\n35"},{"page":4,"startToken":412,"endToken":453,"text":"Page\nIV \nWyoming Department of State Parks: \nComments on the Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Draft Environmental \nImpact Statement .........................................................................................\n42 \nWyoming Game and Fish Department: \nLetter for the Record ........................................................................................\n47 \nComments on the Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Draft Environmental \nImpact Statement .........................................................................................\n50"},{"page":5,"startToken":453,"endToken":836,"text":"(1) \nOVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL ENERGY \nREGULATORY COMMISSION \nWEDNESDAY, JULY 22, 2026 \nU.S. SENATE, \nCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, \nWashington, DC. \nThe Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:33 a.m. in Room \nSD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike Lee, Chairman \nof the Committee, presiding. \nOPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE, \nU.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH \nThe CHAIRMAN. The Committee will come to order. I apologize for \nthe late start time. I serve on the Foreign Relations Committee, \nalong with a couple of our members, and as we often find ourselves \nin that position, we were in a markup, and had any of us left, they \nwould have lost a quorum. So, we ran over here as quickly as we \ncould. \nToday, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources holds a \nhearing to conduct oversight over the Federal Energy Regulatory \nCommission (FERC). Pursuant to the Federal Power Act and the \nNatural Gas Act, the Commission regulates the interstate trans-\nmission and wholesale market of electricity and natural gas, as \nwell as oil and gas pipelines and hydroelectric power. It ensures \nthat electricity rates are just and reasonable, and licenses facilities \nwithin its statutory jurisdiction. All of these things happen to be \nvital to America’s energy dominance, ensuring both our security \nand prosperity at home and also our ability to advance the inter-\nests of the United States on the world stage by supplying the en-\nergy needs of others. \nToday, we will be hearing from FERC’s five Commissioners to re-\nport on their priorities and the Commission’s operations. They are \nChairman Laura Swett, and Commissioners David Rosner, Lindsay \nSee, Judy Chang, and David LaCerte. Following my opening state-\nment today and that of Ranking Member Heinrich, we will hear \nopening statements from each of the Commissioners, followed by \nquestions from each of the Senators in attendance. \nThere was a time when the Federal Energy Regulatory Commis-\nsion operated largely outside the public spotlight. Those days, of \ncourse, are now over. FERC now sits at the center of some of the \nmost important questions facing our country—reliable electricity, \naffordable energy, data centers, manufacturing, and national secu-\nrity. Every one of these issues, in its own way, now runs directly \nthrough FERC. Some estimates suggest that the Commission regu-"},{"page":6,"startToken":836,"endToken":1323,"text":"2 \nlates activity representing roughly five percent of the American \neconomy. This, of course, understates the matter because, in re-\nality, the Commission’s influence reaches much, much further than \nthat. Energy is an input for basically everything we produce, every-\nthing we do. So, when energy becomes more expensive, or when it \nbecomes less reliable, every American pays the price in far more \nways than one. \nThat, of course, makes FERC’s mission more important now than \never. The United States is experiencing the fastest growth in elec-\ntricity demand in a generation. After years of relatively flat load \ngrowth, utilities across our country are now forecasting dramatic \nincreases—increases driven by data centers, artificial intelligence, \nadvanced manufacturing, electrification, and industrial develop-\nment. It means America is building again. It means investment is \nreturning, but none of it happens if we cannot produce and deliver \nenough reliable electricity. \nThat’s why I was encouraged by the Commission’s recent action \nunder Section 206 of the Federal Power Act addressing how re-\ngional transmission organizations and independent system opera-\ntors manage large-load interconnections. Rather than imposing a \nrigid one-size-fits-all federal mandate, the Commission directed six \nregional grid operators to reexamine how large data centers and \nother major new customers might connect to the grid, with par-\nticular attention to interconnection delays, who pays for the nec-\nessary upgrades, and what impact all these things might ulti-\nmately have on consumers. \nThese are extraordinarily difficult questions. No one suggests \nthat they are easy. Large data centers create tremendous economic \nopportunity, but they also consume enormous amounts of elec-\ntricity. Existing ratepayers should not be forced to subsidize costs \nthat properly belong to new entrants. But we also cannot allow out-\ndated processes to prevent new investment from connecting to the \ngrid. Getting that balance right will of course be difficult, but I am \nconfident that if you maintain your current trajectory, you, as our \nCommissioners, will be more than up to that great task. \nI am also encouraged by FERC’s recent efforts to improve the \npermitting process for natural gas infrastructure. FERC is modern-\nizing environmental reviews, reducing unnecessary delays—those \nthat don’t provide any additional value added on the environmental \nfront—and it’s expanding the use of blanket certificates for routine \nupgrades. Every year that we happen to delay needed infrastruc-\nture is another year that Americans have to pay higher prices and \nface greater reliability risks. \nMore importantly, I hope today’s discussion reinforces something \nthat should unite all of us, regardless of political party. As this \nCommittee continues its work on permitting reform, I hope we can \nbuild on the bipartisan momentum that has emerged around many \nof these issues. I look forward to getting perspectives from each one \nof you today on the challenges ahead and to working with each of \nyou to ensure that we lower costs for consumers while simulta-\nneously improving grid reliability. \nRanking Member Heinrich."},{"page":7,"startToken":1323,"endToken":1886,"text":"3 \nOPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARTIN HEINRICH, \nU.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO \nSenator HEINRICH. Thank you, Chairman Lee, and special \nthanks to all five of FERC’s Commissioners for attending this hear-\ning today. We very much appreciate having you here. \nThe Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has long been an \nimportant independent agency. It serves the public interest by reg-\nulating electricity, hydroelectric dams, natural gas, and oil in a \nmanner that is both fair and impartial from the President and from \nCongress, as required by statute. Now, historically considered by \nsome to be a bit of a sleepy agency, FERC faces a very pivotal time \nin our nation’s history right now. Electricity prices are rising, and \nelectricity supply has not been able to keep up with demand. Ac-\ncording to a recent report, 75 percent of U.S. adults say that they \nhave noticed their home energy costs increasing in recent years. \nSome of that blame can be squarely placed on our current Presi-\ndent. I recently released a report on how this administration is \nwaging a war on cheap, clean energy, and the impact of that is ris-\ning energy costs. The administration is slow-walking installing 73 \ngigawatts—think about that, gigawatts—of solar, 43 gigawatts of \nstorage, 30 gigawatts of onshore wind, and 16 gigawatts of offshore \nwind. Constraining this buildout would increase economy-wide util-\nity costs by approximately $11.6 billion per year. But that is not \nthe only reason that costs are rising. \nWe are also seeing a rapid increase in electricity demand and are \nhampered by not getting enough power from generators to end- \nusers and struggling to quickly add new needed generation sources. \nLuckily, we can take steps to improve our grid to help move elec-\ntricity more efficiently and bring new power sources online. I re-\ncently launched an initiative called Grid for Growth, a plan to meet \nsurging electricity demand without shifting the costs of that to con-\nsumers. This effort complements ongoing efforts to pass bipartisan \npermitting reform. And as part of the effort, last week, I introduced \nthe Grid Connection and Congestion Management Act to create a \nfaster path for generator interconnection. Modeled after ERCOT’s \nconnect-and-manage process, projects are rewarded for being flexi-\nble in their output by getting onto the grid faster. \nOther bills will follow in the next few weeks and months, but our \nability to meet the rising needs of the grid are based in large part \non our ability to build more interregional transmission lines. That \nis why permitting reform is so important. Interregional trans-\nmission lines can be the best line of defense against extreme \nweather conditions, improving reliability, and reducing consumer \ncosts. While FERC requires some interregional transmission plan-\nning under Orders 1000 and 1920, this coordination has not, unfor-\ntunately, produced a substantial number of interregional trans-\nmission projects in the last decade. We need to find a way to build \nmore high-voltage transmission lines in the next decade. Our abil-\nity to grow our economy depends on it. And to FERC’s credit, the \nagency has taken active steps to confront energy challenges. Last \nmonth, FERC issued six show cause orders, requiring grid opera-\ntors and their transmission owners to justify or propose changes to \ntheir current tariffs with respect to large-load customers. These \nsteps by FERC can help protect consumers and encourage grid op-"},{"page":8,"startToken":1886,"endToken":2394,"text":"4 \nerators to integrate new advanced technologies when adding new \nlarge loads to the grid. \nFERC choosing to address major electricity users, like data cen-\nters and manufacturers, is an important step in the right direction. \nNevertheless, more action can and should be taken to ensure that \nconsumers are protected from sky-high costs associated with data \ncenters, manufacturers, and other large loads. I have been working \non a bill intended to do just that and hope to speak more about \nthat soon. However, all of these efforts that I mentioned will be \nmeaningless if the independence of FERC is erased. The Supreme \nCourt’s recent decision has put the impartiality of independent \nagencies at risk. Now, more than ever, FERC’s mission to ensure \nthat utility rates remain just and reasonable and not unduly dis-\ncriminatory or preferential is critical to making sure millions of \nAmericans can keep their lights on. During this once-in-a-genera-\ntion moment, I continue to believe that regulatory certainty and \nthe freedom for commissioners of independent agencies like FERC \nto act in a way to provide that certainty will be critical in meeting \nthe energy challenges of today. I hope to discuss these issues with \neach of you during this hearing and very much look forward to it. \nThank you, Mr. Chairman. \nThe CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Heinrich. We will now turn \nto each of the Commissioners here today to give their opening \nstatements, and of course, your written statements will be entered \ninto the record in full. We will begin with the FERC Chairman, \nLaura Swett. The Senate confirmed Chairman Swett back in Octo-\nber of 2025. Prior to that, she served at FERC as a legal advisor \nto two Commissioners, including a former FERC Chairman, and \nshe litigated Federal Power Act and Natural Gas Act matters for \n15 years. \nChairman Swett, you are now recognized, and you may give your \nopening statement. \nOPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LAURA SWETT, CHAIRMAN, \nFEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION \nMs. SWETT. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Lee, Ranking \nMember Heinrich, and members of the Committee for the oppor-\ntunity to testify today. My testimony is rooted in the core principles \nthat anchor my approach as FERC Chairman: affordability, effi-\nciency, and legal durability. \nFor many households, higher utility bills are debilitating burdens \nwith personal consequences. I understand this firsthand from my \nchildhood. Monthly bills caused me deep anxiety when I was a \nchild, and I carry the weight of that financial stress with me every \nday in the way that I lead this agency, and it informs my resolve \nto ensure that families across the country don’t have that same \nburden in shouldering unnecessary costs. As electricity demand ac-\ncelerates, the Commission is acting decisively to ensure that the \ngrid remains reliable and affordable. For too long, this country has \ndeferred critical decisions essential to maintaining the grid, and \nthat era has ended. The responsibility to steer our country through \nthe energy future is squarely upon me and my four colleagues. The \nCommission’s actions under my leadership reflect an unwavering"},{"page":9,"startToken":2394,"endToken":2899,"text":"5 \ncommitment to our statutory obligations to ensure just and reason-\nable rates. \nAt no point in its history has FERC advanced a more comprehen-\nsive set of reforms designed to safeguard American consumers—nor \nbeen, I think, subject to leadership as consumed with honoring the \nlaw as I am. \nFrom aggressively modernizing natural gas permitting to insti-\ntuting far-reaching transparency requirements in our June orders, \nwe are executing a disciplined strategy to reduce costs while rein-\nforcing reliability and encouraging infrastructure investment, and \nthat is a very tough needle to thread, and I am committed to doing \nit. At our June meeting, we took bold action to strengthen cost dis-\ncipline and reliability. You have mentioned, both of you, that we \nordered the six jurisdictional electric markets to produce the most \ndetailed cost transparency measures the Commission has ever re-\nquired. Those actions should equip our state counterparts, who are \nresponsible for doling out household bills, with tools to assess the \nexpenditures, defend ratepayers, and ensure that emerging load \ndrivers, such as data centers, do not impose unjustified costs on \nhouseholds or small businesses. Additionally, we have established \ntransparent, protective rules for integrating new loads quickly, \nwithout compromising reliability. \nStill in the vein of affordability, one of the most effective ways \nto lower energy prices is to eliminate infrastructure constraints \nthat artificially restrict supply. Recent extreme weather events \nshow this clearly. The regions that don’t have enough gas pipeline \ncapacity experienced prices many times higher than those with suf-\nficient infrastructure. These disparities translate directly into con-\nsumer hardship. In response, the Commission is implementing tar-\ngeted reforms to streamline permitting and accelerate project de-\nvelopment. Following the Seven County decision, and under my \nleadership, we are realigning our environmental review practices \nwith the Commission’s statutory role as an economic regulator, a \nfact that appears to have been lost on several of my predecessors. \nSince I joined the Commission late last year, FERC has proposed \nsignificantly expanding blanket authorizations for routine pipeline \nactivities and initiated parallel efforts for LNG and hydropower to \nensure that these projects can move quickly, without burdensome, \ncase-specific reviews, but based on FERC’s decades of experience. \nThese reforms and deliberate recalibration of our processes will re-\nduce administrative friction while preserving full statutory compli-\nance. More energy means lower bills. We are moving fast, but \nmaintaining regulatory excellence so that those investing in and \nbuilding infrastructure are less vulnerable to judicial review \nthrough excellent orders and the associated gridlock and wasted re-\nsources that come with orders that are not. \nIn closing, the work ahead demands clarity, urgency, and strong \nleadership. Our systems are changing faster than ever, and the \nchoices we make now will determine whether the nation is pre-\npared for the coming decades. \nWe have taken meaningful steps in the past nine months of my \ntenure, but the path forward requires sustained resolve, smarter \ntools, and dexterity, as new technology and pressures emerge. My \nfamily and I have made many sacrifices so that I could realize the"},{"page":10,"startToken":2899,"endToken":2984,"text":"6 \nhonor bestowed upon me by the President to guide our country \nthrough the next few years and to success on the other side. I take \nthat commitment with grave resolve, and so long as I am in charge, \nI will push our country toward an energy system that is affordable, \nresilient, and built for the future, with focus and determination, \nand an unwavering commitment to the American ratepayers, who \ndepend on us every single day. \nThank you. \n[The prepared statement of Ms. Swett follows:]"},{"page":11,"startToken":2984,"endToken":3471,"text":"7\nWritten Testimony of Laura V. Swett\nChairman, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission\nBefore the Committee on Energy & Natural Resources\nUnited States Senate\nJuly 22, 2026\nChairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the\nopportunity to testify today. Families and businesses across the nation are confronting significant\nessures from rsing energy costs, and I am well aware that many Amencans have growin\noncerns about reliability of the systems that power their daily lives. My testimony today is roote\nin the core principles that anchor my approach as FERC's Chairman: affordability, efficiency, and\nlegal durability.\nFor many households, higher utility bills are debilitating burdens with personal consequences. I\nunderstand this firsthand from living in a household whose monthly bills caused me deep anxiety\nas a child. The weight of that financial stress remains with me and informs my resolve to ensure\nthat families across the country are not forced to shoulder unnecessary costs\nAs electricity demand accelerates, the Commission is acting decisively to ensure that the nation's\ngrid remains both reliable and affordable. For too long, the United States has deferred critical\ndecisions essential to maintaining the grid. That era has ended and the responsibility to steer our\ncountry through the energy future is squarely upon me and my four colleagues sitting here today.\nThe Commission's actions under my leadership reflect an unwavering commitment to our statutory\nobligation to ensure just and reasonable rates. At no point in its history has FERC advanced a\nmore comprehensive set of reforms designed to safeguard American consumersnor been, I think.\nsubject to leadership as consumed with honoring the law as I am. From aggressively modernizing\nnatural gas permitting to instituting far-reaching transparency requirements in our recent show\ncause orders, this Commission is executing a disciplined strategy to reduce costs while reinforcing\nsystem reliability and encouraging infrastructure investment. It's a very tough needle to thread.\nAt our June meeting, we took unprecedented action to strengthen cost discipline and reliability\nWe issued show cause orders to six Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System\nOperators, calling for the most detailed cost transparency measures the Commission has ever\nrequired. Those actions should equip our state counterparts, who are responsible for doling out\nhousehold bills, with clearer tools to assess expenditures, defend ratepayers, and ensure that\nemerging load drivers such as data center interconnections do not impose unjustified costs on\nhouseholds or small businesses. Additionally, we've established transparent, protective rules for\nintegrating new loads more efficiently without compromising reliability.\nStill in the vein of affordability, one of the most effective ways to lower energy prices is to\neliminate infrastructure constraints that artificially restrict supply. Recent extreme weather events\ndemonstrated this clearly: regions lacking adequate natural gas pipeline capacity experienced\nprices many times higher than those with sufficient infrastructure. These disparities translate\ndirectly into consumer hardship. In response, the Commission is implementing targeted reforms\nto streamline permitting and accelerate critical project development."},{"page":12,"startToken":3471,"endToken":3890,"text":"Following the Supreme Court's unanimous Seven County decision and under my leadership, we\nare realigning our environmental review practices with the Commission's statutory role as an\neconomic regulator-a fact that appears to have been lost on several of my predecessors. Since I\njoined the Commission late last year, FERC has proposed significantly expanding blanket\nauthorizations for routine natural gas pipeline activities and initiated parallel streamlining efforts\nfor LNG and hydropower facilities to ensure that maintenance, repairs, and upgrades can proceed\nwithout burdensome, case-specific reviews. These reforms, reinforced by targeted and deliberate\nrecalibration of our NEPA processes and the adoption of new hydropower categorical exclusions,\nreduce administrative friction while preserving full statutory compliance.\nAccelerating the safe development of interstate pipelines and energy facilities increases supply on\nthe system, and increased supply translates directly into lower utility bills.\nSome numbers for you. Since I became Chairman, the Commission has authorized:\n• 13,424,330 Dth/d of pipeline capacity, including 6,661,940 Dth/d under Blanket Prior\nNotice provisions\n980,000 Dth/d of storage deliverability; an\n690.000 Dth/d of LNG export capacity\nWe are moving fast but maintaining regulatory excellence so that those investing in and building\ninfrastructure are less vulnerable to judicial review and the associated gridlock and wasted\nresources.\nUnder my leadership, the Commission also imposed a historic civil penalty of $722 million against\na company that launched a brazen, money-for-nothing scheme that siphoned hundreds of millions\nof dollars directly from electric utility ratepayers.\nCollectively, these measures reflect a disciplined commitment to protecting consumers, improving\naffordability, and strengthening reliability.\nIn closing, the work ahead demands clarity, urgency, and strong leadership. Our energy systems\nare changing faster than ever, and the choices we make now will determine whether the nation is\nprepared for the coming decades.\nWe have taken meaningful steps in the past 9 months, but we are nowhere near finished. The path\nforward requires sustained resolve, smarter tools, and a willingness to adapt as new technologies\nand pressures emerge. I and my family have made many sacritices so that I could realize the honor\nbestowed upon me by the President to guide our country through this critical period and to success\non the other side. I take that commitment with grave resolve. So long as 1 am in charge, I will\npush our nation toward an energy system that is affordable, resilient, and built for the future, with\nfocus, determination, and an unwavering commitment to the people who depend on it every day.\nThank you."},{"page":13,"startToken":3890,"endToken":4394,"text":"9 \nThe CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Chairman Swett. \nWe will now hear from Commissioner David Rosner. He formerly \nserved as an energy analyst at FERC. He was also someone who \nspent two years detailed to this Committee, in addition to prior \nservice that he had at the U.S. Department of Energy. He has \nserved on FERC as a Commissioner since 2024, including as Chair-\nman for several months in 2025. \nThe Chair now recognizes Commissioner David Rosner. \nOPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID ROSNER, COMMIS-\nSIONER, FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION \nMr. ROSNER. Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich, and \nmembers of the Committee, it is an honor to appear before you \nalongside my colleagues to discuss FERC’s work to deliver afford-\nable and reliable energy for all Americans and our commitment to \nupholding Congress’s vision for a bipartisan, independent, resource- \nneutral regulator. This mission entrusted to us, while simple to ar-\nticulate, is increasingly complex to execute. Energy demand con-\ntinues to grow at a pace that we have not seen in a generation, \ndriven by growth in new industries, like artificial intelligence, re-\nshoring manufacturing, and increased use of electricity in homes \nand businesses. And we face these challenges at a time when fami-\nlies and small businesses struggle with high prices, especially in \ntheir utility bills. So, while meeting this moment presents chal-\nlenges, it also creates opportunities for us to modernize our nation’s \nenergy infrastructure. Upgrading our energy system is necessary to \nensure that every American receives reliable and affordable power, \nand it is essential to our country’s economic competitiveness and \nnational security. With this in mind, I would like to highlight a few \nof the specific actions FERC has taken to confront the challenges \nand realize the opportunities before us. \nFirst, we are accelerating the addition of new electric generation \nof all kinds. Building the energy resources needed to meet growing \ndemand and reducing consumer costs is my top focus. We have im-\nplemented FERC’s landmark Order No. 2023 generator inter-\nconnection reforms and fast-tracked more than 50 gigawatts of \nshovel-ready power plants. Looking forward, I am encouraging grid \noperators to deploy automation and artificial intelligence tools that \nhave been shown to accelerate steps in the interconnection study \nprocess from years to weeks. \nSecond, we are establishing forward-looking grid planning, cen-\ntered around reliability, affordability, and economic growth. This \nyear, FERC will begin acting on transmission providers’ proposals \nto implement Order No. 1920, which modernized long-term trans-\nmission planning. When I arrived as a Commissioner, this rule was \ndivided along party lines. Today, thanks to extensive state engage-\nment and collaborative problem-solving, I am very proud that it is \nbipartisan and unanimously supported. \nThird, we are emphasizing predictability, speed, and legal dura-\nbility for infrastructure permitting. Since January 2025, FERC has \nissued over 120 permits for hydropower and natural gas projects, \nmoving from NEPA review to final permit more than 30 percent \nfaster than was typical during the last decade. Critically, we have \ndone this without compromising quality. FERC’s permits have been"},{"page":14,"startToken":4394,"endToken":4879,"text":"10 \nroutinely upheld in court in recent years. And looking to the future, \npermitting efficiency will become only more essential as demand \ngrowth accelerates. \nFourth, we are embracing innovative pathways to power data \ncenters and other large loads while protecting consumers. Over the \nlast year, the Commission has acted to ensure that demand growth \nleads to a more reliable, affordable, and sustainable grid and that \nAmerica can win the AI race without regular families paying for it. \nAt FERC, this is another top priority. In December and January, \nthe Commission implemented programs in the PJM and SPP re-\ngions to pair new large loads with new generation. This pairing re-\nduces how much these projects lean on the grid, it minimizes the \nneed to construct additional transmission upgrades, it promotes \nflexible operations, and it helps ensure that new loads pay their \nfair share. In parallel, more than 30 states have adopted special re-\ntail rate structures for large loads, an important complement to \nFERC action and a reminder of the cooperative federalism needed \nto protect regular consumers. \nFinally, building upon the progress and the record developed in \nresponse to Secretary Wright’s ANOPR, in June the Commission \nissued a show cause order to each regional grid operator, asking \nthem to modernize their rules for interconnecting large loads. \nThese orders are based upon four key pillars—protect consumers, \nenhance transparency, safeguard reliability, and foster innovation. \nPut simply, the goal is lowering costs, protecting grid reliability, \nand helping new customers and power plants get online faster. \nFifth, we continue to enhance grid security and reliability \nthrough modernization and flexibility. It is essential that we con-\ntinue to deploy 21st-century reliability solutions, like advanced de-\nmand response, dynamic line ratings, predictive artificial intel-\nligence, and emerging cybersecurity technologies. And FERC’s work \nnow includes the development of robust reliability standards for \nlarge loads. \nSixth, we are staying laser-focused on affordability. In addition \nto the examples I have already mentioned, over the last two years, \nFERC has approved expanded competitive electric markets in the \nWest and in the Southeast, which will enable customers access to \nlower-cost power. And in PJM, we approved a temporary price cap \nthat saved consumers more than $25 billion. It is my priority to de-\nliver more examples like this in 2026. \nFinally, I will conclude by highlighting the value of our current \nconsensus-driven mindset. I am immensely proud that the vast ma-\njority of orders I have voted on have been bipartisan and unani-\nmous, including every single energy project permit. This consensus \nensures regulatory predictability, legal durability, and strong out-\ncomes for all Americans, informed by five distinct perspectives \namong the Commissioners. I want to thank my colleagues for their \ncollaboration, which I am confident will continue to deliver for our \ncountry. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and \nI look forward to your questions. \n[The prepared statement of Mr. Rosner follows:]"},{"page":15,"startToken":4879,"endToken":5316,"text":"11\nWritten Testimony of David Rosner\nCommissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission\nBefore the Committee on Energy & Natural Resources\nUnited States Senate\nJuly 22, 2026\nChairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich and Members of the Committee:\nI am honored to appear before you today alongside my colleagues to discuss FERC's work to\ndeliver affordable and reliable energy for all Americans and our commitment to upholding\nCongress's vision for a bipartisan, independent, resource-neutral regulator. It is an honor to serve\nThis mission entrusted to us, while simple to articulate, is increasingly complex to execute.\nEnergy demand continues to grow at a pace not seen in a generation, driven by growth in new\nindustries, like artificial intelligence, by reshoring manufacturing, and by changing patterns of\nenergy use in homes and businesses. Energy technologies are evolving, reshaping how energy\ninfrastructure is planned, built, and used by all types of consumers. And we face these changes\nat a time when families and small businesses struggle with high prices for essential services-\nincluding in their utility bills.\nWhile meeting this moment presents challenges, it also creates opportunities for us to modernize\nour nation's energy infrastructure. Upgrading our energy system is necessary to ensure every\nAmerican receives the reliable and affordable power on which they depend, and it is also\nessential to our country's economic competitiveness and national security.\nWith this in mind, I would like to highlight a few of the specific actions FERC is taking to\nconfront the challenges and realize the opportunities before us:\nFirst, we are accelerating the addition of new electric generation of all kinds: Building the\nenergy resources needed to meet growing demand and reduce consumer costs is my top focus.\nWe implemented FERC's landmark Order No. 2023 generator interconnection reforms and fast-\ntracked more than 50 gigawatts of shovel-ready power plants. Looking forward, I am\nencouraging grid operators to deploy automation and artificial intelligence tools that have been\nshown to accelerate steps in the interconnection study process from years to weeks.\necond, we are establishing forward-looking grid planning, centered around reliability\nffordability, and economic growth: This year, FERC will begin acting on electri\ntransmission providers' proposals to implement Order No. 1920, which modernized long-term\ntransmission planning. When I arrived as a Commissioner, this rule was divided along party\nlines. Today, thanks to extensive state engagement and collaborative problem-solving, I am\nproud it is bipartisan and unanimously supported.\nThird, we are emphasizing predictability, speed, and legal durability for infrastructure\npermitting: Since January 2025, FERC has issued over 120 permits for hydropower and natural\ngas projects, moving from NEPA review to final permit faster than any other agency in the"},{"page":16,"startToken":5316,"endToken":5793,"text":"12\nfederal government and more than 30% faster than was typical during the last decade. Critically,\nwe have done this is without compromising quality-FERC's permits have been routinely\nupheld in court in recent years. Looking to the future, permitting efficiency will become only\nFourth, we are embracing innovative pathways to power data centers and other large loads\nwhile protecting consumers: One of the most significant developments in energy is the rapid\ngrowth of large loads. Over the last year the Commission has acted to ensure that demand\ngrowth leads to a more reliable, affordable, and sustainable grid-and that America can win the\nAt FERC, this is a top priority. In December and January, the Commission implemented\nprograms in the PJM and SPP regions to pair new large loads with new generation. This pairing\nreduces how much these projects lean on the grid, minimizes the need to construct additional\ntransmission upgrades, promotes flexible operations, and helps ensure that new loads pay their\nfair share.\nIn parallel, more than 30 states have adopted special retail rate structures for large loads-an\nimportant complement to FERC action and a reminder of the cooperative federalism needed to\nprotect regular consumers.\nFinally, building upon the progress and the record developed in response to Secretary Wright's\nANOPR, in June the Commission issued a show cause order to each regional grid operator\nasking them to modernize their rules for interconnecting large loads. The Commission's orders\nare based upon four key pillars: protecting consumers, enhancing transparency, safeguarding\nreliability, and fostering innovation. Put simply, the goal is lowering costs, protecting grid\nreliability, and helping new customers and power plants get online faster.\nFifth, we continue to enhance grid security and reliability through modernization and\nflexibility: It is essential that we continue to deploy 21\"-century reliability solutions, including\nadvanced demand response, dynamic line ratings, predictive artificial intelligence, and emerging\ncybersecurity technologies. Last year, for example, FERC and NERC\nimplemented enhanced power plant performance standards for extreme cold weather that have\nalready proved essential in keeping the lights on during winter storms. And FERC's work now\nincludes robust reliability standards for large loads.\nSixth, we are staying laser-focused on energy affordability: In addition to the examples I have\nalready mentioned, over the last two years, FERC has approved expanded competitive electric\nmarkets in the West and in the Southeast, which will enable customers to access lower-cost\npower. And in PJM we approved a temporary price cap that saved consumers more than $25\nbillion. It is my priority to deliver more examples like this in 2026.\nFinally, I will conclude by highlighting the value of our current Commission's consensus-\ndriven mindset. I am immensely proud that the vast majority of orders I have voted on have\nbeen bipartisan and unanimous, including every single energy project permit. This consensus\nensures regulatory predictability, legal durability, and strong outcomes for all Americans,"},{"page":17,"startToken":5793,"endToken":5832,"text":"13\ninformed by five distinct perspectives. I thank my colleagues for their collaboration, which I am\nconfident will continue to deliver for our country.\nThank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to your questions."},{"page":18,"startToken":5832,"endToken":6363,"text":"14 \nThe CHAIRMAN. Thanks so much, Commissioner Rosner. We will \nhear next from Commissioner Lindsay See. She became a member \nof the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in 2024. Prior to \nthat, she had served as the Solicitor General of the State of West \nVirginia. And in that position, she argued before the U.S. Supreme \nCourt at least twice. Before that, she was a litigator in private \npractice, practicing the at the law firm of Gibson Dunn. Commis-\nsioner See, we now recognize you, and you may begin. \nOPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LINDSAY SEE, COMMISSIONER, \nFEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION \nMs. SEE. Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich, Committee \nMembers, thank you for inviting me and my fellow Commissioners \nto appear before you today. While the five of us are at this table, \nplease let me also recognize the hundreds of FERC employees \nwhose expertise, integrity, and dedication make the Commission’s \nwork possible. I am honored to serve with public servants at their \nhigh caliber, and the country is better for their work. \nThe energy landscape has changed dramatically since the last \ntime I and two of my colleagues appeared before this Committee \nin 2024. Some issues persist, but many new ones have risen with \nstriking urgency. All of them are defined by the overarching reality \nthat America needs more power. Demand growth from domestic \nmanufacturing, AI and data centers, and other sectors is a great \nopportunity. A growing load and a growing grid are signs of a \ngrowing economy, but American competitiveness depends on our \nability to deliver reliable and affordable power. \nSo, at FERC, we need decisive and flexible action within our \nlegal authorities that let our regulatory framework keep pace with \nAmerica’s needs. That requires focus on three priorities—speed to \npower, keeping electricity affordable, and the kind of regulatory \ncertainty that gets steel in the ground. \nSo, first on speed to power. We need processes that get new gen-\neration and large new loads connected to the grid quickly and pipe-\nlines and transmission that get power where and when it is need-\ned. FERC has taken important steps to meet those challenges. We \nhave talked about them already. \nLast month, for instance, we issued a series of orders that re-\nquire clear rules for how organized electricity markets study and \nintegrate large new loads. These actions are designed to improve \ntransparency, coordination, and speed when it comes to large-load \ninterconnection. They also recognize that regional differences mat-\nter as part of a shared goal of connecting new demand safely and \nefficiently. We are also reforming permitting processes to speed in-\nfrastructure reviews. We have taken a close look at what NEPA \ndoes and does not require, as well as cut out unneeded construction \ndelays after a review is done. Modernizing permitting can uphold \nour statutory duties while improving predictability and helping get \nneeded projects built. \nSecond, we have to keep electricity affordable. Building the infra-\nstructure to meet growing demand is expensive. But as we make \ninvestments across the electric system, we have to keep the con-\nsumers who ultimately pay for them at the center of our decisions. \nOne path to cost responsibility is encouraging alternative trans-"},{"page":19,"startToken":6363,"endToken":6818,"text":"15 \nmission technologies when they make engineering and economic \nsense. While not always the right fit, these technologies can get \nmore out of the existing system, speed interconnection, and cut \ndown on costly traditional upgrades that would otherwise show up \nin customers’ bills. \nWe also have to keep a close watch to ensure well-functioning, \ncompetitive electricity markets. Over time, organized markets have \ndelivered real value for consumers, but today’s markets were not \ndesigned for the pace and scale of modern large-load growth. So, \nFERC is focused on reviewing novel solutions we are seeing from \nvarious market regions, and we are also keeping close attention on \nthe regions that have more work ahead. \nIn these and other areas, our guiding tenet should be that those \nwho drive costs or benefit from new infrastructure should pay their \nway. By keeping that focus, building needed infrastructure and \nprotecting customers can be complementary goals and not com-\npeting ones. \nThird, regulatory certainty drives infrastructure. As a lawyer, I \nnever forget that if FERC orders don’t hold up in court, infrastruc-\nture doesn’t get built. States, utilities, and developers need con-\nfidence in our regulatory processes. That comes from applying the \nstatutes Congress enacted to the specific records before us. It also \nmeans not hesitating to improve when experience shows we can \nmove faster, and in a transparent and legally responsible way. \nThat drive to improve is animating our recent work in natural \ngas infrastructure. In May, we proposed expanding the blanket cer-\ntificate program by upping cost thresholds and adding new cat-\negories of routine projects for streamlined review. The goal is to \nmodernize permitting to reflect today’s infrastructure and cost-re-\nsponsibility needs, while preserving resources for more complex re-\nviews. \nOne of my priorities has been expanding that approach to the liq-\nuefied natural gas infrastructure project category. I am proud that \nwe are now several months into a process to design a more efficient \nand predictable program for the LNG space that fully meets our \nlegal responsibilities. We are also focused on our hydropower-re-\nlated reviews. Hydro brings critical reliability features to the grid, \nand I support the Commission’s continued efforts to find opportuni-\nties to improve post-licensing processes in this important area, too. \nToday’s energy landscape reveals extraordinary opportunities, \nbut also generational challenges to meet them. In these areas and \nthe others we will be discussing today, I respect FERC’s twin du-\nties not to go beyond our statutory limits, but also not to hold back \nexercising the power we do have in a moment that requires deci-\nsive action. \nThank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and I am \nlooking forward to the discussion and questions. \n[The prepared statement of Ms. See follows:]"},{"page":20,"startToken":6818,"endToken":7310,"text":"16\nWritten Testimony of Lindsay S. See\nCommissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission\nBefore the Committee on Energy & Natural Resources\nUnited States Senate\nJuly 22, 2026\nChairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich, Committee Members, thank you for inviting me and\nmy fellow FERC Commissioners to appear before you today.\nWhile the five of us are at this table, please let me also recognize the hundreds of FERC employees\nwhose expertise, integrity, and dedication make the Commission's work possible. I'm honored to\nserve with public servants at their high caliber, and the nation is better for their work.\nThe energy landscape has changed dramatically since the last time I and two of my colleagues\nappeared before this Committee in 2024. Some issues persist, but many new ones have risen with\nstriking urgency. All of them are defined by the overarching reality: America needs more power.\nDemand growth-from domestic manufacturing, artificial intelligence, data centers, and other\n-is a great opportunity for our country. A growing load and a growing grid are\nsigns of a growing economy, and American competitiveness depends on our ability to deliver\nreliable and affordable power.\nFor FERC in this dynamic time, we need decisive and flexible action within our legal authorities.\nWe have to ensure our regulatory framework keeps pace with America's growing needs. That aim\nrequires clear focus on three priorities: enabling speed to power, keeping electricity affordable.\nand delivering the kind of regulatory certainty that gets steel in the ground\nFirst, reliability requires speed to power. Ensuring reliable electricity isn't just about today's\ngrid. It's about building tomorrow's infrastructure at the pace our growing energy needs require.\nWe need regulatory processes that get new generation and large new loads connected to the grid\nquickly-and pipelines and transmission that get power where and when it's needed\nFERC has taken important steps to help meet those challenges. Last month, for instance, we issued\na series of orders that require clear rules and structure for how organized electricity markets study\nand integrate large new loads. These actions are designed to improve transparency, coordination,\nand speed when it comes to large load interconnection. They also recognize that regional\ndifferences matter as part of a shared goal of connecting new demand safely and efficiently.\nWe're also reforming permitting processes to speed infrastructure reviews. We've taken a close\nlook at what NEPA does and does not require, as well as cut out unneeded construction delays after\nour review is done. Modernizing permitting can uphold our statutory duties while improving\npredictability and helping get needed projects from planning stages to reality.\nSecond, we have to keep electricity affordable. Building the infrastructure to meet growing\ndemand is expensive. But as we make investments across the electric system, we must keep\nconsumers who ultimately pay for them at the center of our decisions.\nOne way to advance cost responsibility is to encourage alternative transmission technologies\nwhere they make engineering and economic sense. While not always the right fit, these"},{"page":21,"startToken":7310,"endToken":7790,"text":"17\ntechnologies can get more out of the existing system, speed interconnection, and cut down on\ncostly traditional network upgrades that would otherwise show up in customers' bills\nWe also have to keep a close watch to ensure well-functioning competitive electricity markets.\nOver time, organized markets have delivered real value for consumers by sharing resources across\nbroader areas, dispatching lowest-cost generation, and strengthening grid reliability. But today's\nmarkets were not designed for the pace and scale of modern large-load growth. So FERC is\nfocused on reviewing the novel solutions we're seeing from various market regions, as well as\nkeeping attention on the regions that have more work ahead.\nIn these areas and others, our controlling tenet should be that those who drive costs or benefit from\nnew infrastructure should pay their way. By keeping that focus, building needed infrastructure and\nprotecting customers can be complementary goalsnot competing ones.\nThird, regulatory certainty drives infrastructure. As a lawyer, I never forget that if FERC\norders don't hold up in court, infrastructure doesn't get built. States, utilities, and developers need\nconfidence in our regulatory processes. It comes from applying the statutes Congress enacted to\nthe specific records before us. It also means not hesitating to improve when experience shows we\ncan move faster, and in a transparent and legally responsible way.\nThat drive to improve animates our recent work on natural gas infrastructure. In May, we proposed\nexpanding the blanket certificate program by increasing cost thresholds and adding new categories\nof routine projects for streamlined review. The goal is to modernize permitting to reflect today's\ninfrastructure and cost-responsibility needs, while preserving resources for more complex reviews.\nOne of my priorities has been expanding that approach to liquefied natural gas infrastructure\nreviews. Today, most changes to operating LNG terminals require project-specific authorizations.\neven for routine proposals that present little environmental or other risk. I'm proud that we're now\nseveral months into a process to design a more efficient and predictable program for the LNG\nspace that fully meets our legal responsibilities.\nWe're also focused on our hydropower-related reviews. Hydropower brings critical reliability\nfeatures to the grid, and in some regions it's consumers' primary source of electricity. I support\nthe Commission's continued efforts to find opportunities to improve post-licensing processes in\nthis important area, too.\nToday's energy landscape reveals extraordinary opportunities, but also generational challenges to\nmeet them. In these areas and the others we will discuss today, I respect FERC's twin duties not\nto go beyond our statutory limits and not to hold back exercising the power we do have in a moment\nthat demands decisive action. I also appreciate the strong partnerships FERC shares across the\nfederal government, with the States, and in the private sector as we take on the priorities that define\ntoday's and tomorrow's energy needs. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I look\nforward to your questions."},{"page":22,"startToken":7790,"endToken":8287,"text":"18 \nThe CHAIRMAN. Thanks so much, Commissioner See. We are \ngoing to hear next from Commissioner Judy Chang. Commissioner \nChang, along with Commissioners See and Rosner, has served on \nFERC since 2024. Prior to that, she served in Massachusetts state \ngovernment as the Under Secretary of Energy and Climate Solu-\ntions and also taught at the Kennedy School at Harvard Univer-\nsity. \nThe Chair now recognizes Commissioner Chang. \nOPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JUDY CHANG, COMMISSIONER, \nFEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION \nMs. CHANG. Thank you. Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Hein-\nrich, and members of the Committee, thank you very much for in-\nviting me and my fellow Commissioners to testify here today. Since \nI last appeared before the Committee two years ago, the country’s \nenergy sector has transformed at a pace that would have previously \nbeen unimaginable. From the position at the Commission, I am fo-\ncused on setting the rules of the road that ensure that our energy \nsystem can keep up with the rapid change and continue to deliver \naffordable and reliable electricity to the American people. \nI would like to highlight three priorities: set clear rules, upkeep \nefficient markets, and drive efficient planning and building of infra-\nstructure. \nFirst, our most pressing mandate is to set clear rules to enable \nthe interconnection of new large loads and deliver the electricity \nneeded to power them while protecting existing customers against \nreliability risks and unwarranted cost shifts. The Commission has \nbeen tasked with solving this problem, and over the last year, we \nhave taken action based on the substantial record before us. \nLast month, we reached an important milestone through the ini-\ntiation of six regional proceedings, in which I highlighted a number \nof important issues. Given the increased cost of power in many re-\ngions of the country, affordability must continue to be top-of-mind. \nThe Commission must ensure that creating new pathways for large \nloads does not lead to a major cost shift to existing customers. \nThough we are improving our understanding of the types of tools \nthat can provide these protections, ultimately, the details will mat-\nter. \nIn addition, the sheer size of the large computational loads will \nhave major reliability implications for the grid. I will continue to \nwork closely with NERC to understand the risks and make sure \nthey are addressed through appropriate Commission action. With \never-increasing importance, advanced transmission technologies \nwill play a major role in getting the most out of our existing and \nexpanding grid, which will in turn help ensure affordability and re-\nliability. Overall, the Commission has an important responsibility \nas both the economic and reliability regulator to take actions that \nprotect consumers. \nSecond, as we experience rapid growth, the Commission must \nwork to ensure that our wholesale electricity markets continue to \ndeliver efficiencies for customers. For decades, FERC has promoted \nthe development of competition in the electricity and natural gas \nsectors, and I remain fundamentally supportive of those efforts. \nOur current market structures have been tailored over time to"},{"page":23,"startToken":8287,"endToken":8639,"text":"19 \nmeet each region’s specific needs, but they must now adapt to the \nmajor changes underway. In the Eastern Interconnection, markets \nmust find ways to keep pace with the growing demand—on the \nsupply side, by modifying capacity, energy, and ancillary services \nmarkets to provide the right economic signals to incent new gen-\neration and preserve needed existing resources; and on the demand \nside, by enabling more savings through increased participation of \ndemand-side resources. In the Western Interconnection, new mar-\nkets are taking shape that may present more complex designs, \nseams, and dynamics to resolve than their eastern counterparts. \nOne of my priorities is to work closely with the market operators \nand the western stakeholders to identify and address those chal-\nlenges to optimize operations and prevent potential manipulation. \nThird, the Commission must continue to set clear rules and regu-\nlations so that the infrastructure needed to support U.S. economic \ngrowth can be built. More focus is still needed on planning, particu-\nlarly on the backbone transmission system through regional and \ninterregional processes. Order No. 1920 set the appropriate ap-\nproach for regions to reach agreement on the long-term trajectory \nof grid growth and cost allocation. I am looking forward to seeing \nthat the compliance process has begun and working with my col-\nleagues to implement those reforms. \nThe Commission also has a prominent role in siting hydroelectric \nand natural gas infrastructure, and we are looking for efficiencies \nthat will facilitate the permitting of the next generation of energy \nprojects. We can gain most efficiencies by ensuring that the roles \nand responsibilities are clear from the outset, and that our deci-\nsions are legally durable and account for people who live near the \nprojects. Making the appropriate process changes can improve ac-\ncess to energy, which, in turn, improves energy affordability and \nreliability. I hope that the Commission can continue to be good \npartners to states and regional entities in this effort. \nAgain, thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I am happy \nto answer questions as we get to them. Thank you. \n[The prepared statement of Ms. Chang follows:]"},{"page":24,"startToken":8639,"endToken":9150,"text":"20\nWritten Testimony of Judy Chang\nCommissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission\nBefore the Committee on Energy & Natural Resources\nUnited States Senate\nJuly 22, 2026\nChairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich, and members of the Committee. Thank you for\ninviting me and my fellow Commissioners to testify today.\nSince I last appeared before the Committee two years ago, the country's energy sector has\ntransformed at a pace that would have previously been unimaginable. From my position at the\nCommission, I am focused on setting rules of the road that ensure that our energy system can\nkeep up with rapid change and continue to deliver affordable and reliable electricity to the\nAmerican people. I would like to highlight three priorities.\nFirst, our most pressing mandate is to set clear rules to enable the interconnection of new large\nloads and deliver the electricity needed to power them while protecting existing customers\nagainst reliability risks and unwarranted cost shifts. The Commission has been tasked with\nsolving this problem, and over the last year, we have taken action based on the substantial record\nbefore us. Last month, we reached an important milestone through the initiation of six regional\nproceedings, in which I highlighted a number of important issues.' Given the increased cost of\npower in many regions of the country, affordability must continue to be top of mind. The\nCommission must ensure that creating new pathways for large loads does not lead to major cost\nshifting to existing customers. Though we are improving our understanding of the types of tools\nhat can provide these protections, ultimately, the details will matter. In addition, the sheer size\nf large computational loads will have major reliability implications for the grid.? I will continue\nto work closely with NERC to understand the risks and make sure they are addressed through\nappropriate Commission action. With ever increasing importance, advanced transmission\ntechnologies will play a major role in getting the most out of our existing and expanding grid,\nwhich will in turn help ensure affordability and reliability. Overall, the Commission has an\nimportant responsibility as both an economic and reliability regulator to take actions that protect\nSecond, as we experience rapid growth, the Commission must work to ensure that that our\nwholesale electricity markets continue to deliver efficiencies for customers. For decades, FERC\nhas promoted the development of competition in the electricity and natural gas sectors, and I\nremain fundamentally supportive of those efforts. Our current market structures have been\ntailored over time to meet each region's specific needs, but they must now adapt to major\nchanges underway in the industry. In the Eastern Interconnection, markets must find ways to\nkeep pace with growing demand: on the supply side, by modifying capacity, energy, and\nancillary services markets to provide the right economic signals to incent new generation and\npreserve needed existing resources; and on the demand side, by enabling more savings through\n' E.g., P.JM Interconnection, L.L.C., 195 FERC \"| 61,211 (2026) (Comm'r Chang, concurring).\n≥ E.g., Reliability Standard(s) Pertaining to Computational Load Integration, 196 FERC †|61,031 (2026)."},{"page":25,"startToken":9150,"endToken":9455,"text":"21\nincreased participation of demand-side resources.? In the Western Interconnection, new markets\nare taking shape that may present more complex designs, seams, and dynamics to resolve than\ntheir eastern counterparts. One of my priorities is to work closely with the market operators and\nWestern stakeholders to identify and address those challenges to optimize operations and prevent\nThird, the Commission must continue to set clear rules and regulations so that the infrastructure\nneeded to support US economic growth can be built. More focus is still needed on planning out\nthe backbone transmission system through regional and interregional processes. Order No. 1920\nset the appropriate approach for regions to reach agreement on the long-term trajectory of grid\ngrowth and cost allocation. I am thrilled to see that the compliance process has begun and look\ntorward to working with my colleagues to implement these reforms nationwide. The\nCommission also has a prominent role in siting hydroelectric and natural gas infrastructure, and\nwe are looking for efficiencies that will facilitate the permitting of the next generation of energy\nprojects. We can gain the most efficiencies by ensuring that roles and responsibilities are clear\nfrom the outset, and that our decisions are legally durable and account for the people who live\nnear the projects. Making the appropriate process changes can improve access to energy, which\nshould, in turn, improve energy affordability and reliability. I hope that the Commission can\ncontinue to be a good partner to states and regional entities in this effort.\nThank you for the opportunity to testify and I am happy to answer any questions.\n3 I recently highlighted the importance of ensuring available demand-side resources can participate in Comnission-\njurisdictional markets, particularly at this moment when supply is tight and prices are high. Midcontinent Indep.\nSys. Operator, Inc., 195 FERC 961,210 (2026) (Comm'r Chang, dissenting)."},{"page":26,"startToken":9455,"endToken":9989,"text":"22 \nSenator MCCORMICK [presiding]. Thank you. And we will turn \nnow to Mr. LaCerte, who comes to us with a distinguished career \nof 20 years in public service at both the state and federal level, and \nalso from service in the Marine Corps. \nSo, Mr. LaCerte, your remarks, please. \nOPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID LACERTE, COMMIS-\nSIONER, FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION \nMr. LACERTE. Thank you, Senator. Chairman Lee, Ranking \nMember Heinrich, distinguished members of the Committee, it’s \ngood to be back before you again. I know it has been a few short \nmonths since I was last here. I was beginning to wonder whether \nyou missed me or not. So, it’s good to be back. It’s my honor to \nserve the American people by implementing the Commission’s stat-\nutory mandate to ensure just and reasonable rates for reliable elec-\ntricity, to site natural gas pipeline infrastructure and liquefied nat-\nural gas facilities, and license non-federal hydropower facilities. I \nam also thankful that the Senate confirmed my appointment to \nserve on the Commission for a subsequent five-year term. I would \nlike to speak on a few of our accomplishments since I joined the \nCommission and address my priorities going forward. I will also \ndiscuss where I believe Congress should effectuate important re-\nforms so that the American public can benefit from the world-class \ninfrastructure that they deserve. \nI will repeat my Commissioners’ sentiments on the June open \nmeeting where the Commission took bold action when we issued six \nshow cause orders, one to each of the RTOs and ISOs within the \nCommission’s jurisdiction. The orders direct these groups, where \nthe majority of Americans reside, to either show cause why their \ncurrent tariffs do not need to be reformed or to file reforms to en-\nsure that large loads, such as data centers, can connect to the \ntransmission system in a swift manner. Importantly, the show \ncause orders direct the grid operators to ensure that such reforms \ninsulate customers from undue costs stemming from the inter-\nconnection of data centers. As I have told this body numerous \ntimes, my pledge to the American people is to keep consumer costs \ntop-of-mind, and I will do so as I continue to review the responses \nto the show cause orders. \nThis Commission also continues to permit projects and issue such \nauthorizations in a timely and legally durable manner. At a time \nwhen energy demand is rising and reliability challenges are mount-\ning, the Commission has acted with efficiency and urgency. Year- \nto-date, the Commission has already issued 15 percent more orders \nover he same time period in 2025. Since I have joined the Commis-\nsion, we have voted in over 720 proceedings, and the Commission \nhas authorized the addition of approximately 13.42 million \ndekatherms per day of natural gas transportation capacity, enough \nfuel to support the electricity needs of over 60 million American \nhouseholds. \nBut how much energy is that? It’s enough to power every house-\nhold in all states represented by the 20 Committee members on \nthis body, plus an additional 20 million Americans. The Commis-\nsion has also certificated roughly 980,000 dekatherms per day of \nstorage deliverability, which provides a critical safety net for the"},{"page":27,"startToken":9989,"endToken":10430,"text":"23 \nnation’s natural gas supply that can help balance seasonal spikes, \nmitigate price volatility, and ensure reliability. \nAs Commissioner, I will continue my steadfast focus on removing \ndistractions and extra-jurisdictional side quests in strict alignment \nwith our statutory authorities granted us by Congress to ensure \nthe Commission continues to expeditiously review all matters be-\nfore us under the FPA and the NGA. One such example relates to \nhow the Commission performs its statutory responsibilities under \nNEPA. Frankly, state and federal reviews have bogged down in-\nvestments in infrastructure to the detriment of our nation, our \neconomy, and our environment. We are looking at ways to stream-\nline our internal processes to better align obligations under NEPA \nwith the Supreme Court’s decision in Seven County. As I said at \nlast month’s open meeting, we will begin implementing changes to \nthe way we evaluate projects against their environmental back-\ndrop, as appropriate, and in such a way as to ensure the analysis \nactually informs the Commission’s evaluation of the project at hand \nrather than wading into the never-ending quicksand of inquiries \nabout where to draw the NEPA line. We will fulfill the require-\nments under NEPA, but in a way that is consistent with NEPA’s \ntextual focus on the proposed action, as outlined by a unanimous \nSupreme Court in Seven County. \nAs you have heard me say before, affordability and reliability are \nmy top commitments, and this load growth must not come at the \nexpense of ordinary Americans who are already concerned about \ntheir energy bills. Although the Commission can take significant \naction to help ensure America’s position to win the challenges of \nthe century, we need help from Congress. And as I said before, per-\nmitting statutes must be designed to ensure responsible infrastruc-\nture development and not stymie it. I am of the opinion that dura-\nble permitting reform must be enacted in the 119th Congress. My \nview has been reinforced as a Commissioner, where I have wit-\nnessed firsthand how difficult it is for companies to invest in our \ninfrastructure. I continue to approach the responsibility of Commis-\nsioner with diligence, independence, and a clear understanding of \nwhom I serve—the American people. It is a profound honor to serve \non this Commission. \nThank you, Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich, and the \nrest of the distinguished members of the Committee, for bringing \nus together today to discuss these important issues and oversight. \nThe only way we win—the only way the American people win—is \nby coming together to craft solutions to these problems before us. \nI look forward to answering your questions. \n[The prepared statement of Mr. LaCerte follows:]"},{"page":28,"startToken":10430,"endToken":10915,"text":"24\nWritten Testimony of David LaCerte\nCommissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission\nBefore the Committee on Energy & Natural Resources\nUnited States Senate\nJuly 22, 2026\nChairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich, and distinguished members of the Committee.\nI'm grateful for the opportunity to again appear before you today. It is my honor to serve the\nAmerican people by implementing the Commission's statutory mandate to ensure just and\nreasonable rates for reliable electricity, site natural gas pipeline infrastructure and liquified\nnatural gas (LNG) facilities, and license non-federal hydropower facilities. 1 am also thankful\nthat the Senate confirmed my appointment to serve on the Commission for a subsequent five-\nyear term.\nI'd like to speak on a few of our accomplishments since I joined the Commission and address my\npriorities going forward. I also will discuss where I believe Congress could effectuate important\nreforms so that the American public can benefit from the world class infrastructure that they\nAt the June open meeting, the Commission took bold action when we issued six show cause\norders, one to each of the Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs) and Independent System\nOperators (ISOs) within the Commission's jurisdiction. The orders direct these groups, where\nthe majority of Americans reside, to either show cause why their current tariffs do not need to be\nreformed or to file reforms to ensure that large loads, such as data centers, can connect to the\ntransmission system in a swift manner. Importantly, the show cause orders direct the grid\noperators to ensure that such reforms insulate customers from undue costs stemming from the\ninterconnection of data centers. As I have told this body numerous times, my pledge to the\nAmerican people is to keep consumer costs top of mind, and I will do so as I review the\nresponses to the show cause orders.\nThe Commission also continues to permit projects and issue such authorizations in a timely and\nlegally durable manner. At a time when energy demand is rising and reliability challenges are\nmounting, the Commission has acted with efficiency and urgency. Year-to-date, the Commission\nhas already issued 15% more orders over the same period in 2025. Since I've joined the\nCommission, we've voted in over 720 proceedings. And the Commission has authorized the\neapaitioy, er augrotid te suppor mitflec teity neeas pef der Dimil on Aameri as trusehoration\nThe Commission has also certificated roughly 980,000 Dth/d of storage deliverability which\nprovides a critical safety net for the nation's natural gas supply that can help balance seasonal\nspikes, mitigate price volatility, and ensure reliability. On LNG, the Commission has approved\nabout 690,000 Dth/d export capacity at America's LNG export terminals, providing global\npartners with access to a reliable energy source that has mutual economic and energy security\nbenefits. As Commissioner, I will continue my steadfast focus on removing distractions and\nextra-jurisdictional side quests, in strict alignment with our statutory authorities granted to us by"},{"page":29,"startToken":10915,"endToken":11469,"text":"25\nCongress, to ensure the Commission continues expeditiously reviewing all matters before us\nunder the Federal Power Act (FPA) and the Natural Gas Act (NGA).\nOne such example relates to how the Commission performs its statutory responsibilities under\nthe National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Frankly, state and federal reviews have bogged\ndown investments in infrastructure to the detriment of our nation, our economy, and our\nenvironment. We are looking at ways to streamline our internal processes to better align our\nobligations under NEPA with the Supreme Court's decision in Seven County Infrastructure\nCoalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, (Seven County). Just last month, the Commission\napproved Eastern Gas's Appalachian Reliability Project - Docket No. CP25-528-000. In that\norder, we set aside the separate category of cumulative effects. As I said at last month's open\nmeeting, we will begin implementing changes to the way we evaluate projects against their\nenvironmental backdrop, as appropriate, and in such a way as to ensure the analysis actually\ninforms the Commission's evaluation of the project at hand rather than wading into the\nquicksand of never-ending inquiries about where to draw the NEPA line. The Commission will\ncontinue to evaluate information on other activities in the vicinity of a given project to help us\ncontextualize and understand how that project will affect the environment. We will fulfill the\nrequirements under NEPA, but in a way that is consistent with NEPA's textual focus on the\nproposed action, as outlined by a unanimous Supreme Court in Seven County.\nWe have also proposed significant modifications to the Commission's pipeline blanket certificate\nregulations to expand the scope and scale of projects that interstate natural gas pipelines may\nconstruct without a case-specific authorization order and to increase the cost limits for such\nprojects, among other changes. The proposed modifications will accelerate pipeline and\ncompressor station construction, increase capacity, improve access for power generators, and\nreduce consumer costs, all while preserving an appropriate level of environmental protection\nThese proposed modifications to the program will facilitate bringing additional capacity online\nquickly to ensure we are meeting the gas and power demands of today and tomorrow. I am\ncommitted to ensuring that outdated or burdensome regulations do not hinder innovation and\nprogress. And I intend to leave no stone unturned in this endeavor. We can build things again in\nthis country while also ensuring the protection of the environment, and that is our undivided aim\nat the Commission.\nFinally, the Commission continues to ensure that its robust enforcement regime protects\nconsumers from bad actors. In April, the Commission levied its largest financial penalty ever -\n$722 million in civil penalties and disgorgement of $410 million in unjust profits, plus interest,\ntotaling over $1.1 billion - when a supposed energy efficiency provider collected hundreds of\nmillions of dollars without providing as much as a single watt of energy savings - or any other\nbenefit - to American ratepayers. We will continue to ensure that the American ratepayer is\nprotected against future fraud and malfeasance.\nAs you've heard me say before, affordability and reliability are my priorities. As load growth\naccelerates, I have been unwavering in my commitment that this growth must not come at the\nexpense of ordinary Americans who are already concerned about their energy bills. Although the\nCommission can take significant action to help ensure America is positioned to win the\n2"},{"page":30,"startToken":11469,"endToken":11948,"text":"26\nchallenges of this century, we need help from Congress. As I've said before, permitting statutes\nshould be designed to ensure responsible infrastructure development, not stymie it.\nI am of the opinion that durable permitting reforms must be enacted in the 119th Congress. My\nview has been reinforced as a Commissioner, where I have witnessed, firsthand, how difficult it\nis for companies to invest in infrastructure. For example, at the Commission's May open\nmeeting, and again last week at our July meeting, I suggested that Congress modernize the Clean\nWater Act (CWA). Most importantly, I recommend clarifying the scope of a discharge under\nCWA section 401 (Section 401). The Supreme Court interpreted Section 401 in PUD No. 1 of\nJefferson County et. al. v. Washingion Department of Ecology et. al., holding that states could\ncondition a federal permit based on the activity as a whole. This holding has not stood the test of\ntime and has allowed states to saddle a federal agency and licensee with conditions that extend\nfar beyond water quality considerations. Additionally, states leverage Section 401 by denying\ncertificates to unilaterally block federally authorized projects. If we want to build new or expand\nupon existing natural gas infrastructure, hydroelectric facilities, and interstate transmission lines,\nCongress needs to ensure that states are not using Section 401 to block infrastructure for political\nSecond, Congress should pick up where the Supreme Court left off in Seven County and continue\nto clarify the scope of NEPA. Similar to modifying the scope of Section 401, and regarding\nsiting and building hydroelectric facilities, Congress should modity the scope and process by\nwhich mandatory conditions are prescribed in licensing proceedings. Further, I encourage\nCongress to reform judicial review procedures for NEPA challenges or authorizations under the\nNGA. Finally, in ensuring that permitting reform is done in a comprehensive manner, 1\nencourage Congress to also modernize other statutes that affect the permitting process, such as\nthe National Historic Preservation Act and Endangered Species Act. It's imperative that we do\nnot trade one hurdle for another, and action on holistic reform is of paramount importance. The\nCommission stands ready to implement any and all reforms under our jurisdiction, and I thank\neach member for taking these issues seriously. Be bold; these reforms are long overdue. The\nbest time to act was years ago, the second-best time to act is now.\nI continue to approach the responsibility of Commissioner with diligence, independence, and a\nclear understanding of whom I serve: the American people. It is a profound honor to serve on\nthis Commission. Thank you, Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich, and the rest of the\ndistinguished members of this Committee, for bringing us together to discuss these important\nissues. The only way we win\n- the American people win -- is by coming together to cratt\nsolutions to the problems before us. Ilook forward to answering your questions."},{"page":31,"startToken":11948,"endToken":12484,"text":"27 \nThe CHAIRMAN\n[presiding]. Thanks so much, Commissioner \nLaCerte. \nI apologize, I had to step out briefly. When you first start to \nwatch proceedings in the Senate, they can look chaotic, and then, \nwhen you watch them more, they can look even more chaotic. \nSometimes we have multiple committees going on at once, multiple \ncommittees voting at the same time. Rigid quorum requirements \ncan be unforgiving. So that’s why we sometimes have to bounce in \nand out. We will now begin our five-minute rounds of questions, al-\nternating between Republicans and Democrats, in order of senior-\nity, subject to the early-bird rule, and I will begin. \nChairman Swett, I would like to begin with you, if that’s okay. \nLast month, FERC took bold action to address issues related to \ninterconnection of data centers to the grid. Now, your orders were \ndesigned to ensure that each region will be able to take its own ap-\nproach to prevent data centers from raising costs to regular con-\nsumers. The orders also seek to modernize the electricity sector, \nwhich has operated under the same regulatory paradigm for many \ndecades, even as technology has changed, even when population \ncenters and electricity demand patterns have evolved significantly. \nCan you explain how you intend to use these orders to help mod-\nernize electricity markets and usher in a new era of innovation in \nthe electricity sector? \nMs. SWETT. Thank you for the question, Senator. \nModernizing and innovation were absolutely the goal of those or-\nders. So, I am very pleased that that has come through. It’s very \nclear to me, after my decade and a half of litigating FERC law, \nthat utilities and markets do not want to change, with the excep-\ntion of a few of them, and it requires aggressive instruction for \nthem to innovate. And so, these June orders were the perfect vehi-\ncle for us to employ the market experts, the markets themselves, \nin order to push the grid into the future. We are accomplishing \nthat through some main tenets here. \nFirst, we have directed fast—on tight timeline—modernization of \ntransmission services and also the study processes that our juris-\ndictional markets employ. This will save our consumers a lot of \nmoney, and with our instructions, they are now in the markets, \nforced to consider advanced transmission technologies in their \nstudy processes and also to study load that may appear near gen-\neration, which will reduce the amount of transmission built that is \nnecessary to get the load online. These are all innovations that are \nnot necessarily considered across the country. Some markets have \nproposed some type of them, but now we are really prompting them \non a shot clock to do it. \nThe third component was that we are forcing more accountability \nto solve the generation issue. Now, you well know that FERC has \nno jurisdiction over generation, but because we have directed each \nmarket to come back to us with reporting on what they intend to \ndo, how to handle this generation cliff that we are standing on as \na nation, that is forcing thought and hopefully action, and together, \nthese tight timelines and instructions should bring our grid to the \nfuture. \nThe CHAIRMAN. Great."},{"page":32,"startToken":12484,"endToken":13012,"text":"28 \nBased on the interconnectedness, so to speak, of the generation \nand transmission. \nMs. SWETT. Yes. \nThe CHAIRMAN. Yes, that makes sense. \nCommissioner Chang, FERC Order 1000 was issued by the Com-\nmission back in 2011. Its goal was to usher in more competition in \nthe electric power sector, particularly by identifying regional trans-\nmission upgrades that could be made and ensuring that those se-\nlected projects were awarded through a competitive process. A dec-\nade and a half later, FERC Order 1000 has not yet fully material-\nized. \nWhat else do you think the Commission can do to bring more \ncompetitive pressure into the electricity sector in a way that is like-\nly to improve conditions, including prices and reliability for con-\nsumers, and what action can Congress take to be helpful? \nMs. CHANG. Thank you, Chairman, for the question. I think I \nwant to first highlight what you already said, which is that the in-\ntent of Order 1000 regarding competitive transmission really has \nnot materialized. There are some regions that have definitely spent \nthe last decade or so implementing competitive processes, but to ac-\ntually bring efficiencies and cost savings to consumers, those proc-\nesses are really just beginning to bring some benefits to the grid. \nAnd I do think that we should find additional efficiencies through \ncompetition where it is possible. And, as you probably heard from \nmy opening statement, the backbone transmission system is ex-\ntremely important in integrating the large loads that we are seeing \nand the large generation that we are adding to the system. And to \nbring down the cost to all consumers will require competition, and \nI hope that Order 1000 and the original goals of Order 1000 could \nbe materialized in the future. \nThank you. \nThe CHAIRMAN. Thank you. \nCommissioner LaCerte, I think it’s fair to say that natural gas \nis a key element—some might say backbone, others might say cor-\nnerstone or keystone—of a reliable, affordable electric power grid. \nAnd this Commission has been moving quickly to help get needed \ninfrastructure approved based on this understanding. Would you \nwalk the Committee through FERC’s recent accomplishments on \nnatural gas, the certificates and the capacity you have approved, \nthe steps you have taken to speed up reviews, and what that might \nmean for consumers, particularly as they get their energy bills? \nMr. LACERTE. Absolutely, Chairman. \nSo, first, you can take a look at how we survived the recent win-\nter storms and the performance of natural gas compared to other \nenergy sources. And it’s really easy to see the way of the future— \nhow we power the country through the future is with natural gas. \nAnd the economists at FERC have been consistent and clear that \nwith additional supplies of plentiful and abundant natural gas, \nthat will help drive prices lower. It’s simple economics, you know, \nyou are going to increase the supply, you are going to increase the \nopportunities for consumers to utilize it, and especially in the mu-\nnicipally owned utility space. \nYou know, some of these municipal governments are captive by \none single pipeline which they get their rates from. If we can in-"},{"page":33,"startToken":13012,"endToken":13563,"text":"29 \ncrease competition for natural gas, especially amongst municipally \nowned utilities, I think you’re going to see prices go down. I think \nyou’re going to see investments in our infrastructure, you’re going \nto see re-onshoring of industry, you’re going to see data centers \ngrow, which is of vital importance to our country. But we are going \nto do it in a responsible way that protects the consumers. And we \nare doing that right now in a bipartisan way with all five Commis-\nsioners. \nThe CHAIRMAN. Thank you. \nSenator Heinrich. \nSenator HEINRICH. Thank you, Chairman. \nI was pleased to hear Commissioner See, Commissioner Chang, \nand Chairman Swett all mention advanced transmission tech-\nnologies. And we all know that there haven’t always been the built- \nin economic incentives to put some of those things onto the grid, \ndespite the fact that they can often have very outsized and efficient \nimpacts on how we utilize the existing grid in a way that doesn’t \nrequire enormous economic upgrades. So, I wanted to ask if you \nwanted to add anything to that conversation, and also, what would \nbe helpful from Congress in terms of congressional action to rein-\nforce a posture of incentivizing these technologies? \nCommissioner See, do you want to jump on that first? You were \nthe first to mention it, so. \nMs. SEE. Happy to, Senator Heinrich. I think when we look at \nour reliability and affordability challenges, it’s certainly necessary \nthat we need to build new infrastructure, and that’s expensive. So, \nnobody is denying that, but there is also a really important mo-\nment for us to make the most out of the existing infrastructure, \nand that is when ATTs and GETs—these technologies can be in-\ncredibly helpful. They are not always the best solution, but they \ncan give significant speed and cost savings to customers. So, I was \nreally grateful that my colleagues and I were able to come together \nand include more language about that in the 206 orders we talked \nabout to make sure that utilities take a hard look at these options \nwhen they are considering transmission upgrades. \nIn terms of what more can be done, you know, FERC has limited \nauthorities in this area. So, we can encourage, we can incentivize, \nbut if this is an issue Congress wants to take up and it gives FERC \nmore clarity and authorities, I would love to see us be able to run \nin this direction because I think it can be so helpful for both reli-\nability and affordability. \nSenator HEINRICH. Very helpful. \nChairman. \nMs. SWETT. Thank you for the question, Senator. I fully agree \nwith you and Commissioner See on this one. We are looking at \nGETs from every angle, and we recently had a software conference \nwhere I had a panel added to have panelists specifically who have \nexperienced implementing GETs in their utilities, in their markets, \nto see how that is playing out, the economics associated with it, \nand I think it is getting a lot of traction. The biggest barrier, to \nanswer your question on a finer point, is that the Federal Power \nAct prohibits FERC explicitly from mandating the building of any \nparticular transmission facility, except for the backstop siting au-\nthority. And it is my personal opinion, as a lawyer, that GETs fall"},{"page":34,"startToken":13563,"endToken":14090,"text":"30 \nunder that category. So, until Congress changes that prohibition, \nFERC is not really able to instruct anything more aggressively. \nSenator HEINRICH. But you can force the analysis—— \nMs. SWETT. Correct. \nSenator HEINRICH [continuing]. Which can then show the most \nefficient economic path. \nMs. SWETT. And we have required that type of analysis in our \nJune orders. \nSenator HEINRICH. Yes, I think that has been very helpful. \nCommissioner Chang. \nMs. CHANG. Great, thank you very much, Senator, for that ques-\ntion. \nI, too, support the use of advanced transmission technology— \nmore than support, I think it’s time that we take pilot projects, and \nthe industry takes pilot projects and really implement the most ad-\nvanced technologies to save consumers money. Again, if the U.S. \nwants to be a leader in technology, this is another set of tech-\nnologies that we can lead in the industry. \nCertainly, I think if Congress wants to work on this, we would \nbe very happy to implement any particular changes. Under the cur-\nrent authority, when transmission owners and developers come to \nFERC and request for incentives, I think there is some room for \nFERC to ask the transmission owners and developers to dem-\nonstrate and illustrate, or to explain what technologies they are im-\nplementing and what else they have considered and why they are \nnot adopting the best technologies available. \nSenator HEINRICH. Great. I appreciate that. According to Law-\nrence Berkeley National Laboratory, at the end of 2025, there were \nmore than 8,200 proposed power plants trying to connect to the \ngrid. But only 13 percent of the capacity that has attempted to get \non the grid between 2000 and 2020 has actually reached commer-\ncial operation. I recently introduced the Grid Connection Conges-\ntion Management Act, which would allow generators to inter-\nconnect even faster to the grid, but I want to ask you, Commis-\nsioner Rosner, what steps beyond Order 2023 should FERC take to \nfurther improve generator interconnection processes? And in par-\nticular, do you want to speak—you mentioned automation and AI \ntools, and I think that’s a space that we are just beginning to see \nthe potential of. And so, if you can touch on that, I would appre-\nciate it. \nMr. ROSNER. Thank you for the question, Senator Heinrich, and \nyes, I think it’s obvious to me that there is a huge opportunity to \nbe smarter about how we run our interconnection processes. The \nTexas model is one example. Implementing automation on a recur-\nrent queue cluster study process is another example. In the SPP \nregion, we had a proposal from them that they brought to us with \nunanimous support from their states that reimagined how to do \nboth generator interconnection and transmission planning together. \nBut, back on automation, there is a huge opportunity there. In \nMISO, their old way with pen and paper and engineers doing the \npower flow studies, it took them 686 days to process their 2021 \ncluster, over 100 gigawatts of generation. Using automation, the \nnew way—less than ten days. And there is open public \nbenchmarking on how well this worked. It was very, very close and"},{"page":35,"startToken":14090,"endToken":14476,"text":"31 \ncontinues to get better. And from my perspective, you know, this \nis all about let’s give applicants—we want to connect new power \nplants to the grid—let’s give them the answer on whether it makes \nsense to connect to the grid in that location or not. \nAnd also, I wouldn’t be doing my job if I didn’t already say, you \nknow, I appreciate your leadership on transmission—regional, \ninterregional. None of these interconnection queue reforms work if \nthere isn’t a grid to plug the power plant into. And we can talk \nmore about some examples of how that hasn’t worked so well re-\ncently, and it’s a huge problem. \nSenator HEINRICH. Thank you. \nThe CHAIRMAN. Senator Barrasso. \nSenator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Chair-\nman, other members, what I want to talk about is the Seminoe \nPumped Storage Project, which is in the State of Wyoming. On \nJune 12th, FERC staff issued their recommended final environ-\nmental impact statement for the Seminoe Pumped Storage Project. \nThis is a private project, and it would create water-pump storage \ninfrastructure above Seminoe Reservoir, which is in Central Wyo-\nming. \nFunctionally, the project works as a battery with capacity effi-\nciency of about 70 percent. It uses power to pump water into stor-\nage and then it sells the power at a profit when the grid needs elec-\ntricity. Wyoming constituents that I have heard from have con-\ncerns. They worry that the project harms the only disease-free big-\nhorn sheep herd in the state and critical mule deer, pronghorn, and \nsage grouse habitat. They also worry that it harms one of the most \nlegendary trout fisheries in Wyoming, and in the world. It’s known \nas the Miracle Mile, but it’s over five miles. It’s a stretch of the \nNorth Platte River between the Seminoe Reservoir and the Path-\nfinder Reservoir. This is an area that must be protected. \nThe project received its water quality permit from the state. \nThere are concerns about wildlife that haven’t been resolved in the \nrecommended environmental impact statement. The state sub-\nmitted comments on the project, which I have here, and Mr. Chair-\nman, I would like to enter these into the hearing record, without \nobjection. \nThe CHAIRMAN. Without objection. \nSenator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. \n[The comments referred to follow:]"},{"page":36,"startToken":14476,"endToken":15000,"text":"32\n~a Wyoming\nDEPARTMENT OF Agricultur\nMark Gordon, Gorermor\nDoug Miyamoto, Director\n2219 Carey Ave. • Cheyenne, WY 82002\nPhone: (307) 777-7321 • Fax: (307) 777-6593\nWeb: agriculture.wy.gov • Email: wdal@wyo.gov\nThe Wyoming Departoment of Atricuhare is dedinsied to the pronstion and enhanvenent of Wiyaming> agricnltart, nataral resourcet and qaaliy of bf.\nDecember 30, 2025\nDebbie-Anne A. Reese\nSecretary\nFederal Energy Regulatory Commission\n888 First Street NE - Room 1A,\nWashington, DC 20426\nTo Whom It May Concern:\nFollowing are the Wyoming Department of Agriculture (WDA) comments regarding the Draft Environmental Impact\nStatement (DEIS) for Hydropower License for the Seminoe Pumped Storage Project - FERC Project No. 14787-004\nWyoming (Project).\nOur comments are specific to our mission: dedication to the promotion and enhancement of Wyoming's agriculture,\nnatural resources and quality of life. As the proposed project could affect our industry, citizens, and natural resources it\nis important that you continue to inform us of proposed actions and decisions and continue to provide the opportunity\nto communicate pertinent issues and concerns.\nThe WDA did not comment during the scoping process, but we offer the following comments and concerns regarding\nthe DEIS and potential negative impacts from the Project on the livestock grazing industry:\nIncorporate Livestock Grazing Allotment Impacts\nThe Abstract and DEIS fail to clearly disclose how impacts are distributed across federal and private lands. Page iv\nindicates there are 1,025.94 acres of land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 77 acres managed by\nthe Bureau of Reclamation, and an additional 830 acres are privately owned. Furthermore, it states 284 acres of land\nwill have permanent disturbance and an additional 328.7 acres with temporary disturbance. There are 1320 acres\nunaccounted for in the Project Abstract; how many of these acres overlap with federal livestock grazing allotments and\nhow many are private? The aforementioned statement also fails to indicate how many total federal versus private acres\nof grazing are impacted by the temporary disturbances, as well as how long the temporary disturbances may impact\nthe livestock grazing operations.\nThe DEIS on page 17 states: \"Construction of the upper reservoir would permanently remove about 160 acres from\ngrazing. This may cause a modification to grazing permits and the number of animal units that can be supported on\nremaining grazing allotments.\" The DEIS provides an oversimplified estimate of \"160 acres\" of loss without disclosing\nthe specific grazing allotments affected or the corresponding loss of Animal Unit Months (AUM). Additionally, the DEIS\nfails to provide a full list of allotments impacted by name, number of acres, and number of AUM's.\nThe DEIS states on page 99: \"the majority (99%) of the land within the project boundary is managed under BLM grazing\nallotments or private lands grazing.\" Furthermore, the DEIS states: \"There are 12 grazing allotments that overlap with\nthe project boundary. The majority of the proposed project facilities, including the upper reservoir, would be located\nEqual Opportunity in Employment and Services\nNaron Clark, Distria 1 • James Rogers, Distrit 2 • Kim Beight, District 3 • Amanda Hulet. Distris + • Mike Raey, Distris 3\nYOUTH BOARD MEMBERS\nMerodith Halweg, Seatbeas • Benjamin Anson, Nerzlues • Hadley Marening, Seathaes • Lexi Bauder, Nertinar"},{"page":37,"startToken":15000,"endToken":15618,"text":"33\nSeminoe Pumped Storage Project DEIS\nFERC Project No. 14787-004 Wyoming\n12/30/25\nPage 2 of 3\nwithin the Black Canyont allotment. The proposed project boundary would occupy approximately 1.2% of the total\nacreage of the Black Canyon allotment. According to Black Canyon Hydro, LLC (BCH), the proposed project boundary\nwould occupy less than 6% of any one grazing allotment..\" WDA believes the DEIS analysis inadequately informs the\npublic, or the public lands livestock grazing permittees of the true impacts of the project.\nPage 103 to 104 of the DEIS states: \"The Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation (WyFB) expressed concern regarding\ngrazing and its potential for loss of acreage and potential collisions with construction, operation, and maintenance\nvehicles. WyFB states that the area of the upper reservoir is one of the most productive for forage within the allotment\nand that the introduction of non-native and invasive plant species can significantly affect forage quantity and quality.\nWyFB recommends that mitigation be based on forage production.\" BCH's response on page 104 states: \"BCH does not\npropose any measures to specifically mitigate the changes in land use or grazing allotments. BCH does propose to\ndevelop a traffic management plan to help manage the increased level of project related traffic.\" The dismissive\nresponse to WyFB's comment is deeply concerning and reiterates WDA's overarching issues regarding the DEIS'\ninadequate analysis of the impacts to the livestock grazing industry. The WDA believes BCH should address livestock\ngrazing impacts equally, with other resources.\nWhile the project footprint may convey only a small percentage of the allotments affected, the lack of inclusion of\nallotment maps, location of fence lines, water wells, pipelines, or other range improvements, indicates there are many\nmore negative impacts to the livestock grazing permittees than the DEIS conveys. WDA requests the inclusion to\nmitigate all range improvements affected by the Project's footprint. We urge the gathering of baseline water pressure\non wells, fence line modifications and maintenance, or other modifications should fall under BCH, not on the\nAddress Livestock Grazing Impacts in the Traffic Management Plan\nThroughout the DEIS, BCH has diligently worked to address many of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department's\ncomments. In particular, the DEIS analyzes impacts such as loss or disturbance of habitat, habitat fragmentation, direct\ninjury or mortality of individual animals, proposals for speed limits to reduce vehicle collisions with wildlife, etc. In most\ncases; wildlife and livestock mutually benefit from similar management actions, such as the reduced speed limit.\nHowever, the DEIS blatantly excludes addressing livestock grazing impacts.\nThe DEIS must equally analyze the impacts to the livestock grazing industry and allotments. The DEIS and tentative\nTraffic Management Plan does not account for the impact of high-volume construction traffic, blasting or general.\nconstruction noise, or the potential for dust to degrade adjacent forage. The DEIS indicates there could be as many as\n79 or more trucks traveling the road per day. These management practices will certainly affect livestock grazing. The\nWDA recommends the Project's traffic management plan address the full scope of livestock grazing impacts.\nThe WDA does not support the permanent loss of AUMs within BLM grazing allotments. The DEIS is currently deficient\nin its analysis of livestock grazing impacts and is noncompliant with the 2008 Rawlins Resource Management Plan\n(RMP). The permanent removal of forage for the upper reservoir, transmission lines, and added infrastructure causes a\ndirect loss that violates the intent of the RMP.\nSpecifically, the Rawlins Record of Decision (ROD)/RMP states on page 2-19: \"Mitigate direct, indirect, and cumulative\nlivestock forage losses and impacts to livestock grazing... where opportunities exist.\" Furthermore, Appendix 18, page\nA18-7 of the ROD specifies these impactsạẠạare typically addressed through onsite mitigation using direct reclamation or"},{"page":38,"startToken":15618,"endToken":15942,"text":"34\nSeminoe Pumped Storage Project DEIS\nFERC Project No. 14787-004 Wyoming\n12/30/25\nPage 3 of 3\nrehabilitation techniques to re-establish the lost vegetation.\" To satisfy these RMP components, the Project's Final EIS\nmust include mitigation for livestock grazing. This plan should outline specific management practices to reduce forage\nand range improvement impacts. Examples could include improving forage distribution using water developments,\ncross fencing, and invasive species treatment.\nPage 17 of the DEIS indicates \"the project as currently designed would not conform to the 2008 Rawlins RMP.\" WDA\nbelieves the DEIS inadequately explains the additional National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirement for the\nProject to come to fruition. We urge BCH to provide a more thorough explanation of what a future Amendment would\nincorporate to conform with the 2008 Rawlins RMP.\nThe RMP proposed amendments in the DEIS are too narrow in scope. WDA recommends expanding the Amendment to\nincorporate hydroelectric energy and necessary modifications or grants to designated Right-of-Way (ROW) corridors.\nWhile the DEIS does not currently propose modifying the RMP's \"Utility/Transportation Systems and Wind Energy\nExclusion and Avoidance Areas,\" WDA believes these areas are warranted for analysis under a Plan Amendment.\nConclusion\nThe WDA insists the Project addresses the identified impacts to the livestock grazing industry and its non-compliance\nwith the existing Rawlins RMP. To remedy these deficiencies, the FEIS for the Project must provide a comprehensive\ninventory of grazing allotments, including a detailed breakdown of acreage and AUM losses per allotment.\nFurthermore, the WDA insist a formal Livestock Forage Mitigation Plan is developed before proceedings or\nimplementing the project. If you have questions, please contact Holly Siebert, Senior Policy Analyst at 307-777-7024.\nSincerely,\n* Doug Miyamoto\nDirector\nDM/hs\nCC:\nGovernor's Policy Office\nWyoming Board of Agriculture\nWyoming Stock Growers Association\nWyoming Wool Growers Association\nWyoming Farm Bureau Federation\nWyoming State Grazing Board\nWyoming Association of Conservation Districts\nWyoming Game and Fish Department\nWyoming County Commissioners Association\nPublic Lands Council"},{"page":39,"startToken":15942,"endToken":16331,"text":"35\nDepartment of Environmental Quality\nTo protect, conserve and enhance the quality of Wyoming's\nenvironment for the benefit of current and future generations.\nMark Gordon, Governor\nTodd Parfitt, Director\nJanuary 2, 2026\nDebbie-Anne A. Reese, Secretary\nFederal Energy Regulatory Commission\n888 First Strect NE, Room 1A\nWashington, DC 20426\nRE: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Comments - Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Draft\nEnvironmental Impact Statement (FERC Project No. 14787-004)\nDear Ms. Reese,\nThe Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the\nSeminoe Pumped Storage Project (Project) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). As a backdrop for\nour comments, it is important to note that the WDEQ has been delegated regulatory and permitting primacy\nover multiple environmental programs by the federal government including for water, air, solid and hazardous\nwaste, and mining activities. In addition, the Wyoming Environmental Quality Act requires certain industrial\nfacilities to obtain an Industrial Siting Permit prior to construction. It is against this backdrop that WDEQ\noffers the following comments:\nGeneral Comments\n• The EIS makes numerous references to road construction and materials transport; however, there is\ncurrently no analysis as to sourcing of those materials. The Final EIS should identify whether these\nmaterials will be sourced from the project itself, nearby, or will be sourced from existing or new mining\noperations.\nIndustrial Siting\nOn November 7, 2022, WDEQ's Industrial Siting Division (ISD) determined that the Project is\njurisdictional and will require a permit from the Industrial Siting Council. (Letter from ISD\nAdministrator to Program Manager, Black Canyon Hydro, LLC). The WDEQ recommends that the\nFinal EIS or FERC License note that prior to construction, Black Canyon Hydro (BCH) will be required\nto obtain a Wyoming Industrial Siting Permit for the Project.\nSolid and Hazardous Waste\nThe DEIS (pg 89) notes that during construction, fly ash will be delivered to the site. The use of fly ash\nmay be considered a beneficial use and may need to be approved by WDEQ in accordance with its Solid\nWaste Rules, Ch. 1, Section 1(f)(xv). In order to make a determination, the WDEQ will need additional\ninformation such as where the fly ash is from, how it will be used onsite, and approximate quantities.\n200 West 17th Street, Choyonne, WY 82002 • http:/ideq.wyoming.gov • Fax (307)635-1784\nAMTTRACH ANONONES OY NTALSITNG OY SOUDTEASTE VATOUY"},{"page":40,"startToken":16331,"endToken":16949,"text":"36\nSeminoe Pumped Storage Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (FERC Project No. 14787-004)\nWyoming DEQ Comments\nJanuary 2, 2026\nPage 2 of 7\nLand Quality\n• Executive Summary (Pages 7 and 9). This section mentions the project will usc gravel similar to the\nadjacent dominant soil and vegetation colors and will use gravel to cover truck routes and exposed\nsurfaces. The DEIS does not indicate if the project requires mining activity for the purposes of\nextracting gravel to be used for those purposes. If so, the project proponent will need to either submit\nthe required information and documentation for a limited mining operation or obtain the appropriate\nmining permits from the WDEQ/LQD, whichever is applicable.\n• Executive Summary (Page 12) - Blasting. The Executive Summary notes that project construction will\nrequire \"extensive ground-disturbing activities, blasting, tunneling, and disposal of large quantities of\nspoil.\" Other sections of the EIS discuss \"hard rock excavation\" (pg 128). It is unclear whether BCH's\nactivities encompass mining. To the extent that BCH's activities encompass mining, the WDEQ has\nblasting primacy. See W.S. § 35-11-402(d). Therefore, BCH will need to comply with WDEQ/LQD's\nblasting regulations in relation to any mining activities. To the extent that BCH's blasting relates to\nactivities outside of the WDEQ/LQD's jurisdiction, BCH will need to comply with the requirements of\nother applicable entitics. For example, to name a few, see International Fire Code Ch. 56, Section 5607,\nand National Fire Protection Association Explosives Material Code 495, Ch. 10, Use of Explosive\nMaterial for Blasting, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives License/Permit/Storage\nrequirements, Wyo. Dept. of Homeland Security, State and Local Emergency Response Commission, etc.\nAir Quality\nIn accordance with Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations (WAQSR) Chapter 6, Section 2,\nair quality permits may be required for some emission sources or activities occurring during the\nconstruction and or operation phases of the Project. Examples of some of those sources or activities\ninclude, but are not limited to concrete batch plants (pg 129), asphalt plants, gencrators and compressors\n(pg 129), storage tanks for diesel or other fuel (DEIS mentions use of on-site diesel equipment but does\nnot mention use or potential emissions from any type of on-site fuel-storage tanks), blasting (pg 19),\nmaterial stock-piles, soil piles (pg 134), spoil pile area (pg 114, spoil size of 50 acres at a height of up to\n15 feet) and other emission sources or activities. As such, obtaining applicable WDEQ air quality\npermits should be discussed in the Final EIS and required by the FERC License.\n• The DEIS recommends that the FERC License include an air pollution control plan with best\nmanagement practices designed to minimize emissions and control construction dust (Page 145).\nWAQSR, Chapter 3, Section 2 (f) prescribes certain fugitive dust control measures for construction and\nmaterial handling and transportation. Given WDEQ's air quality primacy, the WDEQ recommends that\nBCH be required to develop its air pollution control plan in consultation with the WDEQ.\n• BCH's air pollution control plan with BMPs includes *applying water or dust reducing agents.\" (pg\n145). However, the DEIS does not indicate where BCH will source its water, the number or size of any\non-site water tanks, or the number of water trucks used for the Project. The WDEQ recommends that\nBCH indicate the source of the water that it will use, the number and size of on-site water tanks, and the\nnumber of water trucks it will use for the Project's dust suppression activities.\n• Page 137 of the DEIS states that the Project \"would be consistent with state and national goals for\n200 West 17th Street, Cheyenne, WY 82002 • http:ildeq.wyoming.gov • Fax (307)635-1784\nAOMTMECH ABANTNEDMINES ANTHAY ROUSTHESTIRG LNTAUTY SONDHAZRASTE VATRTTETY"},{"page":41,"startToken":16949,"endToken":17521,"text":"37\nSeminoe Pumped Storage Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (FERC Project No. 14787-004)\nreducing GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions.\" This statement is inaccurate. Neither Wyoming's\nLegislature nor the U.S. Congress have established a state or national GHG reduction goal.\n• Executive Summary (Page 4), Section 2.2 Applicant's Proposal (Page 32), Section 3.3 Proposed\nAction and Action Alternatives (Pages 63 and 66), Section 5.1 Comprehensive Development and\nRecommended Alternative (Page 140), and Appendix G (Page 252). These sections describe the\nimplementation of the Water Quality Adaptive Management Plan (AMP) developed by Black Canyon\nHydro, LLC that was attached to its 401 water quality certification request to the WDEQ-WQD and\nfiled with FERC on March 7, 2025. Since that filing, Black Canyon Hydro, LLC, in consultation with\nWDEQ-WQD, has substantially revised the AMP, with a final draft dated September 17, 2025, that was\nsubmitted to FERC on September 18, 2025. Once approved by the WDEQ-WQD, the AMP will be\nincorporated as an enforceable condition of the Section 401 water quality certification for the Project\nand will remain in effect for the daration of the associated FERC hydropower license.\nThe AMP's objective is to manage Project operations to maintain existing water quality and prevent\nexccedances of Wyoming's coldwater aquatic life temperature criteria in the Miracle Mile segment of\nthe North Platte River. It establishes operational restrictions on power generation flows to be\nimplemented between July 1 and September 15 when Seminoe Reservoir levels fall below specific\nelevation triggers, which are evaluated biweekly. Real-time temperature monitoring at U.S. Geological\nSurvey (USGS) gage 06636000 on the Miracle Mile will provide data used to determine whether further\noperational restrictions are necessary. If observed temperatures in the Miracle Mile exceed\ncorresponding biweekly temperature thresholds based on historical data, additional operational\nThe AMP also includes regular coordination with WDEQ-WQD, annual data analysis, and submission\nof an annual report to WDEQ-WQD by December 31 of cach year. Together, these measures will guide\nimplementation of operational restrictions and evaluate their effectiveness in preventing temperature\ncriteria exceedances. Accordingly, WDEQ-WQD requests that the AMP description, its provisions and\npotential corrective actions in the DEIS be updated to reflect the latest (September 17, 2025) version to\naccurately reprosent the methods that will be used to ensure compliance with Wyoming Surface Water\n• Executive Summary (Page 10), Section 2.3 Staff Alternative (Page 38), and Section 5.1\nComprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative (Page 146). In multiple locations, the\nDEIS describes a federal staff alternative under which the Project would be constructed and operated as\nproposed by Black Canyon Hydro, LLC, with certain modifications. One proposed modification is to\n\"modify the Water Quality Adaptive Management Plan in consultation with Wyoming DEQ, Wyoming\nGFD, and BLM to include monitoring DO concentrations and turbidity in addition to water temperatures\nin Seminoe Reservoir, Kortes Reservoir, as well as the Miracle Mile to help determine if changes in\nthese parameters in the Miracle Mile are related to project construction and operation.\" The WDEQ-\nWQD emphasizes that the Water Quality Adaptive Management Plan (AMP) was developed at WDEQ-\nWQD's request for inclusion as an enforceable condition for the Project's 401 water quality certification.\nAdditionally, the AMP is designed to ensure its construction and operation activities comply with\nWyoming Surface Water Quality Standards. The AMP is a requirement of the WDEQ-WQD's 401\n200 West 17th Street, Cheyenne, WY 82002 - http://deq.wyoming.gov - Fax (307)635-1784\nADMUTTYTRESCH A80) TH6D INES"},{"page":42,"startToken":17521,"endToken":18172,"text":"38\nSeminoe Pumped Storage Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (FERC Project No. 14787-004)\nWyoming DEQ Comments\nJanuary 2, 2026\nPage 4 of 7\nwater quality certification and although we acknowledge and support coordination with other federal\nand state agencies, any proposed modification to the AMP must be approved by the WDEQ-WQD.\nUnder Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act and 40 CFR 121.10, the state agency that issues a\nSection 401 water quality certification is the only entity with the legal authority to modify or amend the\ncertification, provided the federal permitting or licensing agency agrees with the proposed modifications\nor amendments. This authority extends to conditions of the certification, such as the AMP. Accordingly,\nwe request that the DEIS be revised to clearly reflect these requirements when referencing any potential\nmodifications to the AMP.\n• Executive Summary (Page 13) and Section 3.3 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives (Page 65).\nThese sections describe that releases of water from the proposed upper reservoir during power\ngencration would cause de-stratification in the portion of Seminoc Reservoir in proximity to the\ninlet/outlet location. However, this characterization does not align with Black Canyon Hydro, LLC's\nSeminoe Pumped Storage Water-Quality Model report (August 28, 2024, p. 27), which indicates that\nplanned operations would have a variable effect on the duration of stratification (-5 to +9 days) and that\nthe timing of stratification and turnover is similar to conditions without the Project. Only maximum\noperations were shown to reduce the duration of stratification in each simulated year. The WDEQ-WQD\ntherefore requests that the DEIS language be revised to avoid implying that complete thermal de-\nstratification would occur in Seminoe Reservoir near the inlet/outlet location with Project operations.\n• Section 3.3 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives (Pages 53 and 69) and Appendix C (Tables 7\nand 19). The DEIS uses the outdated classification system (e.g., Class 2) for assigning designated uses\nto Wyoming surface waters, identifying the North Platte River immediately above Seminoe Reservoir as\nwell as Seminoe and Kortes Reservoirs as Class 2AB, and the segment from Kortes Dam to Pathfinder\nReservoir as Class 1. Please note that the WDEQ-WQD revised the Wyoming Surface Water Quality\nStandards in August 2025, replacing the previous classification system with a waterbody-specific\ndesignated use system. While the underlying designated uses remain the same, the DEIS should now list\nthe specific designated uses assigned for each surface water rather than the previous classification. For\nthe North Platte River segment immediately above Seminoe Reservoir and including Seminoe and\nKortes Reservoirs, the designated uses assigned to these waters are coldwater aquatic life, drinking\nwater, human consumption of fish, industry, irrigation, livestock, terrestrial wildlife, recreation, and\nscenic value. Furthermore, waters previously identified as Class 1, such as the North Platte River\nbetween Kortes Dam and Pathfinder Reservoir, are now referred to as Outstanding Resource Waters.\nMoreover, referenced water quality criteria in the DEIS should also include the specific designated uses\nfor which they are meant to protect (c.g., numeric dissolved oxygen criteria for early and other life\nstages are protective of the cold-water aquatic life designated use). The updated Wyoming Surface\nWater Quality Standards and the full list of waterbody-specific designated uses are available on the\nWDEQ-WQD website at https://deq.wyoming.gov/water-quality/watershed-protection/surfacc-water-\nquality-standards/. WDEQ-WQD staff are available to assist with any questions about Wyoming's\nupdated Surface Water Quality Standards.\n• Section 3.3 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives (Page 54). The DEIS states that \"While average\nDO levels upstream to downstream gencrally meet the 6 mg/L state criteria for aquatic life throughout\nthe year, there are periods when DO concentrations fall below the 8 mg/L daily minimum for DO state\ncriteria for early life stages including within the narrower canyon reach of Seminoe Reservoir where the\n200 West 17th Street, Cheyenne, WY 82002 • http://deq.wyoming.gov - Fax (307)635-1784\nAOMTUTRESTH A80 THED MINES"},{"page":43,"startToken":18172,"endToken":18741,"text":"39\nSeminoe Pumped Storage Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (FERC Project No. 14787-004)\nWyoming DEQ Comments\nJanuary 2, 2026\nPage 5 of 7\nproposed inlet/outlet structure would be located.\" This statement incorrectly references a 6 mg/L\ndissolved oxygen criterion protective of coldwater aquatic life that the Wyoming Surface Water Quality\nStandards docs not contain. Furthermore, the clause that dissolved oxygen concentrations fall below the\n8 mg/L daily minimum for early life stages requires context based on the type of water (reservoir versus\nriver). For clarification, numeric dissolved oxygen criteria protective of coldwater aquatic life contained\nwithin Wyoming Surface Water Quality Standards apply as follows:\na) Seminoe and Kortes Rescrvoirs (early life stages directly exposed to the water column): 7-day\nmean of 6.5 mg/L and instantancous minimum of 5.0 mg/L;\nb) North Platte River (early life stages indirectly exposed to the water column): 7-day mean of\n9.5 mg/L and instantaneous minimum of 8.0 mg/L; and\nc) Seminoe and Kortes Reservoirs and the North Platte River (other life stages): 30-day mean of\n6.5 mg/L, 7-day mean minimum of 5.0 mg/L, and instantancous minimum of 4.0 mg/L..\nThe WDEQ-WQD requests that these clarifications be included in the DEIS when describing existing\ndissolved oxygen conditions in comparison to Wyoming's dissolved oxygen criteria protective of\n• Section 3.3 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives (Pages 54 and 55). The DEIS currently\ncompares the existing water quality conditions of Seminoe Reservoir, Kortes Reservoir, and the North\nPlatte River against applicable dissolved oxygen and pH criteria protective of coldwater aquatic life\ncontained in Wyoming's Surface Water Quality Standards. However, comparisons of existing conditions\nto Wyoming's temperature criteria protective of coldwater aquatic life are absent and should be included\n• Section 5.2 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts (Page 147). The WDEQ-WQD requests the DEIS be\nupdated to include the unavoidable loss of 1.48 acres of the \"Dry Lake\" wetland as a result of\nconstruction of the Project's upper reservoir in Section 5.2 - Unavoidable Adverse Impacts. Although\nthe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) determined \"Dry Lake\" (referenced as \"Wetland W-2\" in\ntheir October 10, 2025, jurisdictional determination NWO-2022-01415-RWY to Black Canyon Hydro,\nLLC) is not a water of the United States, it remains a surface water of Wyoming and is subject to\nWDEQ-WQD regulation. Therefore, the placement of dredged or fill material into &Dry Lake and any\npotential mitigation requires WDEQ-WQD authorization. Including this unavoidable impact in the DEIS\nis necessary to ensure NEPA compliance and to inform the public and our agency of necessary\npermitting and mitigation that may be required under Wyoming Water Quality Rules.\n• Appendix A Statutory and Regulatory Requirements (Page 151). We understand that Appendix A of\nthe DEIS is intended to list all applicable federal and state laws, regulations, permits and certifications\nthat may be required for the Project. This appendix correctly identifies primary federal laws and many\nassociated federal permits, including the need for a 401 water quality certification from the WDEQ-\nWQD. However, it omits other necessary permits issued by the WDEQ-WQD under our delegated Clean\nWater Act and state authorities. Considering information in the DEIS and reiterating our November 4,\n2024, scoping comments, the WDEQ-WQD requests that the following information be added to\n200 West 17th Street, Cheyenne, WY 82002 - http:/deq,wyoming.gov • Fax (307)635-1784\nARMTTREOCH ABOY TONED MINES ATROANT"},{"page":44,"startToken":18741,"endToken":19306,"text":"40\nSeminoc Pumped Storage Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (FERC Project No. 14787-004)\nWyoming DEQ Comments\nJanuary 2, 2026\nPage 6 of 7\nAppendix A of the DEIS to ensure compliance with Wyoming's Water Quality Rules.\n• WDEQ-Water Quality Division (WQD) Authorities - In accordance with Title 35, Chapter 11 of\nthe Wyoming Statutes (Wyoming Environmental Quality Act) and Wyoming's Water Quality\nRules, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality - Water Quality Division (WDEQ-\nWQD) is responsible for the protection and restoration of the quality of waters of the state. The\nWDEQ-WQD also implements portions of the federal Clean Water Act, including development\nof surface water quality standards, identification of impaired waters, and development of total\nmaximum daily loads for impaired waters under Section 303; inventorying water quality under\nSection 305; discharge permitting under Section 402; water quality certifications under Section\n401; and addressing nonpoint sources of pollution under Section 319. Under these regulatory\nauthorities, the WDEQ-WQD must ensure the Project protects water quality and designated uses\nof surface waters of the state consistent with Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, 307, 401, and 402 of\nthe federal Clean Water Act; Wyoming Surface Water Quality Standards (Chapter 1, Wyoming\nWater Quality Rules); Wyoming Permit Regulations for Discharges to Wyoming Surface Waters\n(Chapter 2, Wyoming Water Quality Rules); and other applicable state laws and regulations.\no Large Construction Stormwater General Permit - For Project construction activities that will\nclear, grade, or otherwise disturb a cumulative five or more acres, coverage under a Wyoming\nPollutant Discharge Elimination System (WYPDES) Large Construction Stormwater General\nPermit (LCGP) is required. Disturbance includes construction of the Project and associated\naccess roads, construction of mitigation sites, borrow and stockpile areas, and equipment staging\nand maintenance areas. For coverage under the LCGP, a Notice of Intent and a complete\nStormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be submitted prior to beginning\nconstruction activities. Additionally, if the Project boundary falls within a Greater Sage-Grouse\nCore Area or a Mule Deer and Antelope Migration Corridor, the owner or operator must\ncoordinate with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department to ensure that the Project is consistent\nwith the Governor's Executive Orders 2019-3 and 2020-1, respectively. A map of sage-grouse\ncore areas in Wyoming is available at https://wgfd.wyo.gov/Habitat/Sage-Grouse-\nManagement/Sage-Grouse-Data. A map of mule deer and antelope migration corridors can be\nfound at https://wgfd.wyo.gov/wyoming-wildlife/movement-matters/big-game-migration.\nAdditional information is available at https://deq.wyoming.gov/water-quality/wypdes/discharge-\nmonitoring-reports/storm-water-permitting/.\n• Temporary Discharges Involving Construction Activities General Permit - Project activities that\ninvolve the temporary discharge of pollution associated with, but not limited to, construction\ndewatering, disinfection of potable water lines, well pump testing, or pipeline hydrostatic testing\ninto a surface water of the state, require coverage under the WYPDES General Permit for\nTemporary Discharges Involving Construction Activities. Additional information is available at\nhttps://deq.wyoming.gov/water-quality/wypdes/discharge-permitting/.\n• General Permit for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material - Project activitics that involve the\ndischarge of dredged or fill material into any surface water of the state (including wetlands), as\ndefined in Wyoming Statutes 35-11-103(c)(vi), that do not meet the federal definition of waters\nof the United States (WOTUS) at 33 CFR Part 328 and 40 CFR Part 120, require coverage under\n200 West 17th Street, Cheyenne, WY 82002 • http://deq.wyoming.gov - Fax (307)635-1784\nOMNTUTRECH ABOTNEDMNES ANTHTY BESTHSING LANTUNY SONZ WASE VAERTUTETY"},{"page":45,"startToken":19306,"endToken":19723,"text":"41\nSeminoe Pumped Storage Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (FERC Project No. 14787-004)\nWyoming DEQ Comments\nJanuary 2, 2026\nPage 7 of 7\nthe WYPDES General Permit for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material. Under this permit.\ndischarges of dredged or fill material that temporarily or permanently impact a cumulative 1 acre\nor less of wetland or a cumulative 500 lincar feet or less of stream channel or shoreline length\n(i.e., small discharges), are automatically covered and will not require submittal of a Notice of\nIntent (NOI) provided the applicant complies with all conditions of the general permit. Large\ndischarges of dredged or fill material are those that temporarily or permanently impact greater\nthan 1 cumulative acre of wetland or a cumulative stream channel or shoreline length greater\nthan 500 linear feet. Large discharges will require submission of an NOI and verification of\ncoverage prior to beginning activities. If large discharges of dredged or fill material result in the\npermanent loss of more than 1 cumulative acre of (a) naturally occurring wetland or (b) human-\nmade wetlands used to mitigate the loss of naturally occurring wetlands, wetland mitigation will\nalso be required. For additional information on the General Permit for Discharges of Dredged or\nFill Material, please call 307-777-7093 for more information.\n• Short-Term Sediment Disturbances - Project activities that involve construction, repair, or\nmaintenance in and along a surface water of the state that will result in a short-term exceedance\nof narrative turbidity criteria, a waiver is recommended. In accordance with Chapter 2, Section\n2(b)(viii), the administrator of the WQD may authorize temporary increases in turbidity above\nthe criteria in Chapter 1, without a permit, upon review of plans for the activity in and along the\nwaterway. A workplan must be submitted by the operator, and a waiver approved by the\nadministrator before work begins. This process generally takes about 15 - 30 days. Please call\n307-777-7093 for more information.\nIf you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Ross Breedlove at 307-\n109\nTodd Parfitt\nDirector\nWyoming Department of Environmental Quality\nNancy Vehr - Deputy Director, WDEQ\nJennifer Zygmunt - Administrator, Water Quality Division\nAmber Potts, Administrator, Air Quality Division\nJenny Staeben, Administrator, Industrial Siting Division\nBrandi O'Brien, Administrator, Land Quality Division\nSuzanne Engles, Administrator, Solid and Hazardous Waste Division\nKeith Guille - Outreach Program Manager\nRoss Breedlove - Policy/NEPA Coordinator\nNolan Rap - Natural Resource Policy Advisor, Govemor's Office\n200 West 17th Street, Cheyenne, WY 82002 - http://deq.wyoming.gov - Fax (307)635-1784"},{"page":46,"startToken":19723,"endToken":19917,"text":"42\nWYU PARKS\nJanuary 2, 2026, VIA Electronic Filing\nDivision of Hydropower Licensing\nc/o Debbie-Anne Reese, Acting Secretary\nFederal Energy Regulatory Commission\n888 First Street NE, Room 1A\nWashington, DC 20426\nRe: Project No. 14787-004 Wyoming, Seminoe Pumped Storage Project -\nComments on DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT FOR HYDROPOWER\nLICENSE\nTo Whom It May Concern:\nThe Wyoming Department of State Parks and Cultural Resources, Division of State Parks,\nHistoric Sites, and Trails, submits the following comments on the Draft Environmental Impact\nStatement for Hydropower License for the Seminoe Pumped Storage Project, FERC Project No.\n14787-004.\nWyoming State Parks and Cultural Resources has filed a Motion to Intervene on this project.\nPlease contact me with any questions.\nSincerely,\nCail-stem Carruthers\nCarly-Ann Carruthers\nPlanning Manager\nState of Wyoming, Department of State Parks and Cultural Resources\nDivision of State Parks, Historic Sites, and Trails\n2301 Central Avenue, Cheyenne, WY 82002\n307-777-6968, CarlyAnn.Carruthers@wyo.gov\nEnc: Draft EIS_WY SPCR Comments_Jan 2, 2026\nCc:\nMichael Tust, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission\nChi's Floyd | Oppoly Drecto\nARTS. PARKS\nHISTORY.\n2301 Central Avenue • Barrett Building. 4th Floor • Cheyenne. WY 82002 • 307.777.6323 • wyoparks.org\nImproving Communities and Enriching Lives"},{"page":47,"startToken":19917,"endToken":20222,"text":"43\nWYU PARKS\nJanuary 2, 2026, VIA Electronic Filing\nDivision of Hydropower Licensing\nc/o Debbie-Anne Reese, Acting Secretary\nFederal Energy Regulatory Commission\n888 First Street NE, Room 1A\nWashington, DC 20426\nRe: Project No. 14787-004 Wyoming, Seminoe Pumped Storage Project -\nComments on DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT FOR HYDROPOWEF\nLICENSE\nThe Wyoming Department of State Parks and Cultural Resources (SPCR), Division of State\nParks, Historic Sites, and Trails, offers the following comments on the Draft Environmental\nImpact Statement, dated September 2025, for the Seminoe Pumped Storage Project, P-14787-\no04. These comments reflect many of the same challenges and concerns we presented in\nScoping letters in November 2024 and March 2025-\nStatutorily, SPCR is charged with the management and protection of Wyoming's state parks,\npublic recreation grounds, and historic sites.' Therefore, comments on the Draft Environmental\nImpact Statement revolve around issues of recreation and cultural resource protection on both\nthe State Park, the proposed project area, and the surrounding lands. In Wyoming, recreation\nand cultural resource protection are directly linked to habitat and wildlife health and the\ntourism industry, a backbone of the state's economy.\nSeminoe State Park has hosted an average of 45,156 visitors annually over the past five years.\nThe Park is operated by Wyoming SPCR through a Management Agreement with the Bureau of\nReclamation.* The agreement outlines conditions for the management, development, operation,\nand maintenance of recreation, recreation improvements, and recreation facilities at Seminoe\nReservoir. This arrangement should be clarified on page 111 of the DEIS, which also fails to\nmention the North Red Hills campground.\nVyoming Statutes Annotated, Section 36-4-108(b)(i). Available online: Wyoming Statutes Annotate\nlanagement Agreement No. 15-LM-60-2363, effective through May 2042, is available upon reque\nRTS, PARK\nIISTOR\n2301 Central Avenue • Barrett Building. 4th Floor • Cheyenne. WY 82002 • 307.777.6323 • wyoparks.org\nImproving Communities and Enriching Lives"},{"page":48,"startToken":20222,"endToken":20701,"text":"44\nHunting and fishing are the third most popular outdoor activities in the state, behind only water\nsports and trails, paths, and mountain recreation.a Wetlands, crucial habitats, and the recreation\nthey support are hugely important to the state.+ The project area is adjacent to popular\nrecreation areas that hinge on wildlife and fisheries resources that are major economic drivers\nfor their communities.\nWildlife and habitat are key drivers of recreation and infrastructure related to the Seminoe\nPumped Storage Project will result in direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to fisheries and\nwildlife and their respective habitats. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement needs to do\ngame crucial winter and parturition ranges. We wish to see Wyoming's Game and Fish\nrecommendations better incorporated into the final EIS.\nThe Seminoe Pumped Storage Project is surrounded by public lands, and public lands access is\nanother key concern. Disrupted access to these areas is not deeply addressed in the DEIS, other\nthan to say that a traffic management plan will be implemented and that hunters will be guided\nto the Bennett Mountain WSA if they have sheep licenses. These actions are important, but\nlimited in their scope and ability to mitigate impacts this project will have on broader public\nAnalysis of the Recreation Resources section assumes no reduction in services to the State Park;\nSPCR requests further details on what access the project will require to Seminoe Reservoir from\nthe west, both during construction and operations. We are not satisfied with an explanation of\nhow construction or permanent equipment may be deployed along the shoreline. If boat ramps\nor other infrastructure will be used during the construction or maintenance phases,\nconsideration must be given to Land and Water Conservation Funds (LWCF), which have been\ndeployed at this park and which require that resources may be used only for outdoor recreation\nPermits can be issued for tes perary direapiro of faciliies, and conversions of equalland\nerpetual outdoor recreation use are required for any permanent disruptions. If the Semino\nPumped Storage Project will impact any recreation facilities, including boat ramps or acces\npoints, those details should be conveyed to Wyoming SPCR to avoid any potential issues.\nThe large spoils pile being sited directly across from the State Park's busiest access point and\nmost popular campground remains a chief concern, as does dust mitigation as it has the\npotential to disrupt customer experience at the State Park.\n3 2024-2028 Wyoming Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, page 42. Available online at\nWyoming State Parks, Historic Sites, and Trails' website-\n+ See pages 18-20 of the 2024-2028 Wyoming Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan.\ns The Land and Water Conservation Funds Handbook for the State of Wyoming can be accessed from the\nState Parks, Historic Sites, and Trails website.\nARTS PORLS\n2301 Central Avenue • Barrett Building, 4th Floor • Cheyenne. WY 82002 • 307.777.6323 • wyoparks.org\nImproving Communities and Enriching Lives"},{"page":49,"startToken":20701,"endToken":21158,"text":"45\nLower speed limits, appropriate signage, dust management, and road maintenance are essentia\nonsiderations but do little to reduce the traffic that the county road routes will expect to see\nThe potential for user conflicts is high and road improvements will be required.\nVisual resources are important to the setting in the project area and the need for changes to the\nBLM RMP are minimized in the DEIS. The two proposed BLM RMP amendments, while\noriginating with another federal agency, are a key component of the Seminoe Pumped Storage\nPlan. The amendments have major implications for the region and have not been adequately\nanalyzed. Though technically out of scope by having originated with another federal agency, it is\nprudent to review all project components together.\nWyoming's outdoor recreation economy is substantial and growing, and increased to $2.2\nbillion in 2024 (4.1% of the state's gross domestic product, or GDP), a growth rate of 26.1% that\ntrails only Hawaii, Montana, and Vermont.\" Outdoor recreation in its many forms and the\nbusiness that it generates contributes substantially to the quality of life in Wyoming. The\nestimated loss of $2.2 million in lost tourism revenue through a reduction of over 100,o0o\nregional visits is substantial and, according to our tourism partners, may not adequately capture\nthe potential adverse impact. This analysis should be reconsidered, taking care to explore a\nlarger regional area centered upon the Miracle Mile and visitors drawn to the larger Platte River\nSPCR reiterates the following considerations, as were mentioned in our Scoping Comments:\n• SPCR must be involved with developing and monitoring response and incident plans,\nincluding the fire prevention and protection plan, hazardous spill prevention and\ncleanup plan, aquatic invasive species plan, cyanobacterial monitoring, and\nnoxious/invasive weed management plans. SPCR handles implementation of these plans\non property managed as the State Park. SPCR is responsible for fresh water permits\nwithin the State Park and wants to ensure water is clean and that invasive species are\ncurtailed.\n• SPCR requests for a point of contact to be notified immediately of any contamination or\nnecessary mitigation and kept in the loop for all project communication.\n• Per the recreation management agreement with Reclamation, SPHST is responsible for\nengaging with the Section 106 process for the State Park and requests to be party to this\neffort to ensure adequate cultural resource mitigation. The Wyoming SHPO is housed in\nSPCR, but planning staff for State Parks operate separately from the SHPO.\n• Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2023. Outdoor Recreation Satellite Account U.S. and States, 2022.\nAvailable at: https://www.bea.gov/data/special-topics/outdoor-recreation.\nAARTS PORES,\n2301 Central Avenue • Barrett Building, 4th Floor • Cheyenne. WY 82002 • 307.777.6323 • wyoparks.org\nImproving Communities and Enriching Lives"},{"page":50,"startToken":21158,"endToken":21401,"text":"46\n• SPCR is exploring completing a Resource Management Plan in conjunetion with\nReclamation sometime in the next 5 years which will require, at minimum, an\nEnvironmental Assessment.\n• SPCR is exploring expansion of Seminoe State Park, including adding new management\nareas, enrolling motorized trails to the Wyoming State Trails Program, and building\ninfrastructure. These expansions aim to better connect the Park, to address increasing\nvisitation, and to facilitate natural and cultural resource protection in areas that are\nbeing degraded due to unmonitored use. The timeline for those changes is fluid, but we\nwill be transparent with any proposals.\nKey Park staff were not available in mid-to-late December to adequately review the Traffic\nManagement Report and the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan; these plans play a major\nrole in addressing avoidance and mitigation of key issues and we will plan to submit comments\nseparately on this and any other major project adjustments.\nSPCR will be glad to provide any additional information needed. Please contact me with any\nquestions.\nSincerely,\nCarlystem Carrutter\nCarly-Ann Carruthers\nPlanning Manager\nState of Wyoming, Department of State Parks and Cultural Resources\nDivision of State Parks, Historic Sites, and Trails\n2301 Central Avenue, Cheyenne, WY 82002\n307-777-6968, CarlyAnn.Carruthers@wyo.gov\nEnc: Draft EIS_SPCR Comments_Jan 2, 2026\nCc:\nMichael Tust, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission\nNKk Neyton Deputy erecle\nARTS. PARKS\nHISTORY\n2301 Central Avenue • Barrett Building, 4th Floor • Cheyenne. WY 82002 • 307.777.6323 • wyoparks.org\nImproving Communities and Enriching Lives"},{"page":51,"startToken":21401,"endToken":21758,"text":"47\nWyoming Game and Fish Department\nConserving Wildlife, Serving People\nGovernor Mark Gordon • Director Angi Bruce\nCommissioners\nAshlee Lundvall, Presider\nMark Jolwich, Vice Presider\nRusty Bel\nBill Ma\nCarfido Forzy\" Haskel!\nJohn Masterson\nKenneth D. Raberts\nDecember 31, 2025\nWER12249.25\nFederal Energy Regulatory Commission\nBlack Canyon Hydro, LLC\nrPlus Hydro, LLLP\nDEIS Seminoe Pumped Storage Project\nProject No. 14787-004\nCarbon County\nSecretary Debbie-Anne Reese\nFederal Energy Regulatory Commission\nOffice of Energy Projects\nDivision of Hydropower Licensing\n888 First Street NE, Room 1A\nWashington, D.C. 20426\nDear Secretary Reese,\nThe Wyoming Game and Fish Department (Department) has reviewed the Draft Environmental\nImpact Statement (DEIS) for the Seminoe Pumped Storage Project (Project). The Department is\nstatutorily charged with managing and protecting all Wyoming wildlife (W.S. 23-1-103). Pursuant\nto our mission, we offer the following comments for your consideration.\nThe Department continues to have serious concerns with the proposed Project due to the potential\nand predicted impact to a fishery of national importance and the direct and indirect loss of bighorn\nsheep, mule deer, antelope, and sage-grouse habitat functionality. We have articulated our\nconcerns to the Project proponent and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission)\nthrough numerous exchanges and yet our most significant concerns, direct and in-direct impacts\nto the Ferris-Seminoe bighorn sheep herd and the fisheries of Seminoe Reservoir, Kortes Reservoir\nand the Miracle Mile segment of the North Platte River continue to be inadequately addressed or\nThe Ferris-Seminoe bighorn sheep herd is a population of great importance to the State of\nWyoming due to its clean health status. This is currently the only herd we would consider as a\nsource population if future reintroduction or supplemental transplants were to be completed.\nBighorn sheep are extremely susceptible to environmental and anthropogenic stressors, which can\nculminate in herd level, stress-induced, mortality events. Given the Project's intense level of\nproposed construction activities and the duration of these activities, we do not support the\nCommission's granting of a variance to our recommended timing stipulations for the crucial winter\nand parturition ranges. Furthermore, bighorn sheep have very specific habitat requirements which\n(307) 777-4600 | wgf-contactgwyo.gov | 5400 Bishop Blvd., Cheyenne, WY 82006"},{"page":52,"startToken":21758,"endToken":22120,"text":"48\nSecretary Reese\nDecember 31, 2025\nPage 2 of 3 - WER 12249.25 Cover Letter\nthe minimization and mitigation measures proposed in the DEIS will not be able to adequately\ncompensate. Bighorn sheep habitat is irreplaceable.\nSeminoe Reservoir, Kortes Reservoir, and the Miracle Mile are important fisheries to the State of\nWyoming. Although stocked annually, much of the trout and walleye populations are naturally\nmaintained through yearly spawning. Changes to water quality, including temperature, dissolved\noxygen, turbidity, and water levels resulting from the operation of the project, pose a potentially\nserious risk to both the long-term health of the fisheries, as well as, the sustainability of fishing-\nbased recreation. The Project's Water Quality Adaptive Management Plan (AMP) does not include\nspecific procedures and control measures for immediate action if a threshold is met. Given that\nassurances have not been provided within the AMP, the fish residence study was limited in scope,\nand the Project's potential negative impacts to the Miracle Mile's Blue-Ribbon Fishery and the\nwild walleye population in Seminoe Reservoir, the proponent's minimization and mitigation\nFinally, The Project proponent's Alternative D has created new concerns for the Department.\nAlternative D was submitted to the Commission well into the DEIS public review process on\nDecember 15, 2025. The newly submitted and revised materials include changes to both the Project\nconfiguration and implementation. These changes to the Project may have different impacts to\nfish, wildlife, and their habitats that have not been fully evaluated by the Commission, or included\nin the analysis, findings, or conclusions presented in the current DEIS. The late submission of the\nmaterials does not allow adequate time for the Department to fully review and provide informed\ncomments, and furthermore, even understand how the Commission will consider or incorporate\nAlternative D into the current DEIS. The Department respectfully requests the Commission\nprovide an additional public comment period if the Commission decides to incorporate Alternative\nD and revised materials into their analysis for this Project.\nThank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact\nWill Schultz, Habitat Protection Program Supervisor, at 307-777-4587.\nSincerely,\nAngi Bruce\nDirector\nWyoming Game and Fish Department\nAB/ws/ac"},{"page":53,"startToken":22120,"endToken":22147,"text":"49\nSecretary Reese\nDecember 31, 2025\nPage 3 of 3 - WER 12249.25 Cover Letter\nU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service\nChris Wichmann, Wyoming Department of Agriculture"},{"page":54,"startToken":22147,"endToken":22497,"text":"50\nWyoming Game and Fish Department\nConserving Wildlife, Serving People\nGovernor Mark Gordon • Director Angi Bruce\nCommissioners\nAshiee Lundvall, Presider\nMark Jolovich, Vice Presider\nRusty Bel\nBil Ma\nCarfido Forzy\" Haskel!\nJohn Masterson\nKenneth D. Raberts\nDecember 31, 2025\nWER12249.25\nFederal Energy Regulatory Commission\nBlack Canyon Hydro, LLC\nrPlus Hydro, LLLP\nDEIS Seminoe Pumped Storage Project\nProject No. 14787-004\nCarbon County\nSecretary Debbie-Anne Reese\nFederal Energy Regulatory Commission\nOffice of Energy Projects\nDivision of Hydropower Licensing\n888 First Street NE, Room 1A\nWashington, D.C. 20426\nDear Secretary Reese,\nThe Wyoming Game and Fish Department (Department) has reviewed the Draft Environmental\nImpact Statement (DEIS) for the Seminoe Pumped Storage Project (Project). The Department is\nstatutorily charged with managing and protecting all Wyoming wildlife (W.S. 23-1-103). Pursuant\nto our mission, we offer the following comments for your consideration.\nThis Project is proposed to be located in an area of Wyoming that contains multiple vital habitats.\nProject-related impacts to fish, wildlife, and their habitats are expected to result from both the\nconstruction and operation. Due to the large scope of the Project, each sub-area and stage of\ndevelopment and operation presents unique risks and impacts. The DEIS contains proposed actions\nwhich may potentially minimize overall impacts to segments of the Project. We appreciate the\nFederal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) attention to addressing several of the\nDepartment's concerns provided during the Scoping and Notice of Intent comment periods and\nincorporating our recommendations in the DEIS. However, the Department is still seriously\nconcerned that the DEIS lacks sufficient avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures to\nnegate potential and predicted adverse effects to fish, wildlife, and their habitats. As such, we\nprovide the following comments and recommendations.\n• P.g. 38 - Modify the Water Quality Adaptive Management Plan in consultation with Wyoming\nDEQ, Wyoming GFD, and BLM to include monitoring DO concentrations and turbidity in\naddition to water temperatures in Seminoe Reservoir, Kortes Reservoir, as well as in the\nMiracle Mile to help determine if changes in these parameters in the Miracle Mile are related\n(307) 777-4600 | wgf-contactgwyo.gov | 5400 Bishop Bivd., Cheyenne, WY 82006"},{"page":55,"startToken":22497,"endToken":22954,"text":"51\nSecretary Reese\nDecember 31, 2025\nPage 2 of 9 - WER 12249.25\no The Department appreciates and agrees with the Commission to include monitoring\nDO concentrations and turbidity in addition to water temperatures in Seminoe\nReservoir and Miracle Mile in the Water Quality Adaptive Management Plan. We\nrecommend this monitoring occur for the life of the project.\n• Additionally, the Water Quality Adaptive Management Plan should identify\noperational measures that will be implemented immediately upon findings of exceeding\nwater quality thresholds to rectify any adverse effects to aquatic habitat and fishes in\neach of the affected water bodies, for the life of the project.\n• P.g. 56 - Most of the fish species found in Seminoe Reservoir (e.g., rainbow trout, walleye,\nsuckers, bass and sunfishes) spawn from April through July.\no The Department has not identified bass or sunfish within Seminoe Reservoir.\n• P.g. 56-57 -The results show that the larger game species and suckers were dominant in the\nlower areas of the reservoirs (i.e., Areas 1 and 2) while smaller individuals of all species and\nminnow species were dominant in the upper sections of the reservoir survey area (i.e., Areas\n4 and 5). Specifically for Area 1 (which includes the proposed inlet/outlet structure and\nSeminoe Dam), the late spring/early summer survey collected generally larger fish including\nall three trout species, wolleye, ond white sucker, with no young-of-year or juvenile fish\ncollected. The late summer/early fall survey in Area 1 collected similar numbers of trout and\nwolleye with lower mumbers of white suckers and some emerald shiners. Most of the fish\ncollected in Area I were collected within the upper 8-10 feet of the water column.\no Methods used in the fish resident survey were used to sample larger size fish and are\nnot efficient in sampling small fish in deep water, including young of the year and\njuvenile fish. Electrofishing and seining can only sample at depths of a few feet. While\nexperimental gillnet can sample at deeper depths, the gillnets are poor at catching small\nfish. The mesh panels of the gillnets can be too large to effectively catch and retain\nsmall fish, while the small panels are highly visible and the stiffness of the\nmonofilament lead to poor capturing of small fish. Due to sampling methods used, most\nof the fish that were collected in Area 1 were in the upper 8-10 feet of the water column\nand may not represent young-of-the year or juvenile fish that may be at a deeper water\ncolumn depth. We recommend the survey's limitations and potential bias be considered\n• P.g. 60 - Even with BCH's proposed BMPs to minimize erosion, there would still be some\nshort-term incraases in turbidity expected during project construction."},{"page":56,"startToken":22954,"endToken":23369,"text":"52\nSecretary Reese\nDecember 31, 2025\nPage 3 of 9 - WER 12249.25\n• The Department recommends limiting in-water construction activities that have the\npotential to cause an increase in turbidity to occur outside the spawning time limiting\nstipulation periods for rainbow, cutthroat, and brown trout.\nRainbow and Cutthroat Trout - March 15 through May 15\n• Brown Trout - October 15 through December 15.\nboundary, educating personnel on what to look for and how to control species, and how BCH\nwould adapt to new species entering the project would ensure that aquatic invasive species are\ncontrolled and aquatic habitats maintained for the benefit of fish and wildlife.\no The Department concurs with the Commission that an aquatic invasive species control\nplan needs to be developed and implemented during construction, operation and\nmaintenance for the life of the project. The plan should include specific procedures for\nmonitoring and control measures.\n• P.g. 63 - To address the potential for project operation to affect water temperatures in the\nMiracle Mile downstream due to project operation, BCH proposes to implement a Water\nQuality Adaptive Management Plan, filed on March 7, 2025, which includes provisions for:\n(1) monitoring hourly water temperatures at the USGS river gage in the Miracle Mile reach\nof the North Platte River from July 1 through September 30 for at least the first 5 years of\nproject operation; (2) comparing monitoring results to specific temperature thresholds\nestablished from historical temperature data at the gage site; (3) conducting evaluations to\ndetermine if project operation is responsible for exceeding temperature thresholds and, if so,\ndeveloping corrective measures in consultation with Wyoming DEQ; and (4) filing an annual\nreport with Wyoming DEQ by March 31 that contains monitoring results, evaluations, and any\ncorrective measures proposed.\no The Department recommends monitoring efforts should continue for the life of the\nProject. If temperature exceeds thresholds, then operational actions which adequately\naddress exceedances are recommended to be implemented immediately. The\nDepartment recommends monitoring efforts be extended to include Seminoe Reservoir.\nAdditionally, the Department recommends that pre-construction, during construction,\nand post-construction monitoring occur.\n• P.g. 70 - Daily surface water fluctuation predicted during proposed pumping and generation\nactivities would lead to small, gradual changes in reservoir elevations (i.e., less than a 2 inch\nper hour increase or decrease and a total intraday change between 6.4-20.88 inches depending\non Seminoe Reservoir operating levels). Hunter (1992) found that water stage changes of 2\ninches or less are common in unregulated rivers; therefore, these fluctuation rates are"},{"page":57,"startToken":23369,"endToken":23829,"text":"53\nSecretary Reese\nDecember 31, 2025\nPage 4 of 9 - WER 12249.25\nexpected to be within those typically experienced by fish and other aquatic biota in the North\nPlatte River and are not expected to cause any widespread fish stranding along reservoir\no The Department is concerned that walleye spawning habitat may be impacted with the\nchanges in reservoir elevations during pumping and generation activities. Walleye\nselect shallow (<5 meters), nearshore (<3 meters) gravel deposits for spawning (Raabe\nand Bozek 2012). Reservoir elevation fluctuations of up to 20.88 inches may lead to\nreductions in walleye spawning success due to the desiccation of newly deposited eggs.\n• P.g. 87 - In areas where variances or waivers to seasonal and spatial mitigation measures are\ngranted for big game habitats, BCH would use on-site biological monitors to monitor the\naffected area daily during peak or optimal periods of big game activity and during authorized\nconstruction activities that may affect behavior or survival of big game at the location. If\nmonitoring detects an impact on big game behavior or habitat conditions change and are no\nlonger compatible with adaptive management, the biological monitor would immediately\nnotify the appropriate federal agency and the construction contractor so the impacts may be\navoided, eliminated, or mitigated.\n• We continue to request the Commission recognize and support the\nDepartment's recommendations for time limiting stipulations for big game\ncrucial winter and parturition ranges.\no The DEIS proposed action currently assumes variances or waivers to seasonal and\nspatial mitigation measures are acceptable, warranted, and will be granted by the\nCommission. This proposed action is in direct contlict with the recommendations\nthe Department has provided to the Commission during the Scoping and Notice of\nIntent comment periods for this Project. It also inappropriately assumes that other\nfederal, state, and local permitting authorities will also ignore the Department's\no Impacts to big game from construction activity may not be physically symptomatic\nfor a biological monitor to detect. Stress induced myopathy can occur a few hours\nto a few weeks after a stressful event.\no Spraker, T. R., C.P. Hibler, G. G. Schoonveld, and W. S. Adney. 1984. Pathologic\nchanges and microorganisms found in bighorn sheep during a stress-related die-off.\nJournal of Wildlife Diseases. 20: 319-327.\no The pathogenesis of this all-age die-off appears to be a complex of factors\nthat resulted in death of 75 to 85% of the population and the significant\nmortality of lambs born the following three springs. Sheep in Waterton\nCanyon had been unduly stressed over a relatively short period of time (1\nyr). Stress factors for sheep of Waterton Canyon were related to increased\ndisturbance due to construction of a high-level dam within the Canyon.\nOther added stress factors included: 1) increased human activity; 2) extreme"},{"page":58,"startToken":23829,"endToken":24318,"text":"54\nSecretary Reese\nDecember 31, 2025\nPage 5 of 9 - WER 12249.25\ncar and truck traffic (one vehicle every 3 min) which caused high levels of\ndust within the canyon atmosphere; 3) increased noise-blasting, trucks etc.;\nand 4) the increased traffic may have discouraged sheep from using the river\nfor water needs.\n• P.g. 88 - To reduce the impacts of increased construction-related traffic to bighorn sheep and\nmule deer along the 3.7 mile stretch of Seminoe Road, BCH proposes to: (1) fence a 1.3-mile\nsegment of the haul route olong Seminoe Road where visibility is reduced, to reduce the\npotentiol for collisions of bighorn sheep and mule. deer; (2) post and strictly enforce a 25 mph\nspeed limit; (3) install sensor triggered wildlife warning signs at known crossing areas; (4)\nuse animal detection systems including cameras, contimuous radio dispatch, and human\nmonitoring (traffic control flaggers during high wildlife use periods and pausing traffic when\nungulate wildlife are present) to identify when sheep and deer maybe present and at risk; (5)\ninstall animal deterrents to lead them away from the road and/or alert them to approaching\ntraffic (use of wildlife reflectors, mirrors and repellents); (6) increase the attractiveness of\nareas away from the road by restoring salt licks or water holes; and (7) evaluate ways to\nimprove riparian areas off-site within the Ferris-Seminoe Bighorn Sheep Herd Unit.\no The Department does not support or recommend fencing the haul route along\nSeminoe Road as it will restrict wildlife movement to resources and creates\nopportunity for wildlife entrapment, entanglement, and mortality.\no The Department does not recommend implementing animal deterrents. In addition\nto increased big game use in the Project area during vital times of the year, big\ngame and other wildlife inhabit the Project area year-long. There should be no\nattempt due to this Project's construction or operations to deter wildlife from any\nportion of the Project area.\n• P.g. 92 - Pre-construction, during construction, and post-construction monitoring to document\nchanges in bighorn sheep herd population, herd health, and use of crucial winter range and\nparturition habitat within areas disturbed during project construction would provide metrics\nneeded to assess the full extent of project related impacts to the herd. If herd population is\nreduced (through direct loss or health) or change in availability or use of habitat is determined\nto threaten the future viability/health of the herd and its habitat, additional mitigation\nmeasures may be needed to address project effects. This could include transplanting and\nrelocation of bighorn sheep to boost population mimbers or additional habitat improvements\no The Ferris-Seminoe bighorn sheep herd is a robust herd, and based on disease\nsurveillance data, the healthiest bighorn sheep herd in Wyoming (Appendix A).\no This herd is currently the Departments only viable source population for the\nconsideration of future transplants and herd augmentations. Any reduction in herd\nsize and health will negatively impact the Departments ability to reintroduce"},{"page":59,"startToken":24318,"endToken":24776,"text":"55\nSecretary Reese\nDecember 31, 2025\nPage 6 of 9 - WER 12249.25\nbighorn sheep populations and augment herds that have shown declines in\npopulation. This population is derived from bighorn sheep that were specifically\nselected decades ago due to the characteristics of being non-migratory and\npersisting at relatively lower elevations. These characteristics are important due to\nthe potential risk of encountering domestic sheep and goats outside the herd unit\nand the relatively low elevation of the Ferris-Seminoe herd unit.\n• The Department does not recommend transplanting or relocation of bighorn sheep\ninto this population because there is currently no viable source population for this\naction due to disease concerns.\no The Department is unable to identify mitigation options that will adequately\ncompensate for the direct and indirect impacts from the Project's proposed\ndisturbance levels and loss of habitat for these bighorn sheep as they display a high\nfidelity for the Project site.\n• P.g. 94 - A portion of the project transmission line and one transmission line access road\nwould be located within the 0.6-mile lek NSO buffer for occupied greater sage-grouse leks.\nHowever, because the transmission line would be constructed within 0.5 mile of an existing\nWAPA transmission line, it may be considered consistent with Wyoming EO 2019-3. Because\nBCH proposes to construct within the llowed construction time window for occupied leks,\nand estimated noise levels for construction and traffic are anticipated to remain below the 10\ndBA threshold, the potential for adverse impacts of noise on greater sage-grouse at occupied\nleks are expected to be negligible.\n• Per Appendix E of the Executive Order 2019-3 Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area\nProtection (SGEO) \"Within 0.6 miles of the perimeter of occupied Greater sage-\ngrouse leks there will be no surface occupancy (NSO). NSO, as used in these\nrecommendations, means no permanent surface facilities, including roads, shall be\nplaced within the NSO area. Other activities may be authorized with the application\nof appropriate seasonal stipulations, provided the resources protected by the NSO\nare not adversely affected.\" As proposed the project is not compliant with the\nSGEO.\no To ensure compliance with the SGEO, the Department recommends locating both\nthe transmission line and the road outside of the 0.6-mile NSO, adhering to the\nseasonal use stipulations, and submitting the finalized Project to the Density\nDisturbance Calculation Tool for review of compliance with the provisions of\nSGEO.\n• P.g 255 - Improving habitat conditions within the remaining crucial winter range and\nporturition habitats within the Ferris-Seminoe Bighorn Sheep Herd Unit prior to beginning\nconstruction could increase the carrying capacity of these lands to support displaced sheep\nand other wildlife during construction and beyond. Measures could include invasive species\nmanagement and hand-clearing to create openings for winter range, and food plots."},{"page":60,"startToken":24776,"endToken":25171,"text":"56\nSecretary Reese\nDecember 31, 2025\nPage 7 of 9 - WER 12249.25\nTherefore, Commission staff recommends that BCH revise the draft Wildlife Restrictions Plan,\nin consultation with BLM and Wyoming GFD, to :\n• The Department does not agree that revising the proponent's Wildlife Restriction\nPlan to include the Commission's mitigation measures will result in adequate\nmitigation for the potential adverse effects to the bighorn sheep herd.\n• The Ferris-Seminoe bighorn sheep exhibit a high fidelity to the Project area due\nto outstanding habitat characteristics it possesses: water, food, shelter, space,\nand the proximity of these primary habitat characteristics to each other.\n(1) develop and implement pre-construction bighorn sheep habitat improvement measures;\nthrough habitat projects will take decades. For example, invasive species\nmanagement takes years of persistent and intensive repeated treatments to deplete\nseed banks in the soils. Native seed plantings for desired grasses, forbs and shrubs\ncan take several years or decades to grow to the desired age classes, and success\nis highly dependent on precipitation and often need to be seeded multiple times.\no The Project location overlaps with much of the crucial winter and parturition range\nhabitat which is delineated from the monitoring of actual use by the bighorn sheep\nwithin the herd unit.\n• Consideration of habitat improvement projects elsewhere in the herd unit may\nultimately not result in any meaningtul acceptance and use by bighorn sheep given\ntheir demonstrated preference for the Project area. It also may introduce an\nincreased risk for bighorn sheep to become exposed to other environmental risks\nsuch as increased predation, competition for habitat resources with other ungulates\nor domestic livestock, and disease vectors\no The Department does not recommend food plots as mitigation because of the risks\nassociated with artificially congregating wildlife such as increased transmission of\ncommunicable diseases and parasites.\no This type of mitigation would be logistically challenging due to extreme slope and\nthe rocky, rugged terrain. Additionally, it would increase the risk of establishing\ninvasive plant species in naïve habitat.\n(2) conduct pre-construction, during construction, and post-construction monitoring to\ndocument changes in bighorn sheep herd population, herd health, and use of habitat;\no The Department has been extensively monitoring this population of bighorn sheep\nusing geospatial positioning collars since 2009.\n• The Department's monitoring data indicates that the vital ranges are accurately\nmapped. Bighorn sheep show a high fidelity to these areas because of the habitat"},{"page":61,"startToken":25171,"endToken":25539,"text":"57\nSecretary Reese\nDecember 31, 2025\nPage 8 of 9 - WER 12249.25\ncharacteristics they possess: water, food, shelter, space, and their proximity to each\nother.\nand (3) file monitoring reports with the Commission along with recommendations for\nodditional mitigation measures, if needed, to address project effects to the Ferris-Seminoe\nBighorn Sheep Herd Unit population and its habitat. Commission staff estimate this measure\nwould have a levelized anmal cost of $26,183, and find the benefits to be worth the cost.\no The filing of monitoring reports will not address immediately detectable, or long-\nterm and potentially irreversible adverse effects to the Ferris-Seminoe bighorn\nsheep herd from Project construction and operations.\no Furthermore, if there were additional measures which could mitigate potential\nadverse effects from the Project's construction or operation, we recommend these\nare identified and required proactively by the Commission, instead of considering\no Based on the Department's experience during the last couple of decades working\ncollaboratively with both federal and state land management agencies, non-\ngovernmental organizations, and private landowners on habitat enhancement\nprojects in the Ferris-Seminoe bighorn sheep herd unit, in addition to the\nDepartment's annual expenditures for monitoring movement, survival, and\nconducting disease surveillance, the Commission's estimated levelized annual\ncost is profoundly underestimated. We recommend the Commission update their\nlevelized annual cost to reflect a realistic amount required to truly attempt to\nmitigate the adverse effects from the Project on the Ferris-Seminoe bighorn sheep\nThe Project proponent's Habitat Management Plan, Weed and Vegetation Management Plan,\nWildlife Seasonal Restriction Variance Plan, Raptor Protection Plan, Sage-grouse Management\nPlan, and the Traffic Management Plan revisions were submitted to the Commission quite late in\nthe Commission's analysis period for the DEIS. These all lack sufficient and specific measures for\navoidance, minimization, and mitigation for adverse effects to the habitat and the species which\nOverall, the Department continues to have serious concerns with the proposed Project due to the\npotential and predicted impact to a fishery of national importance and the direct and indirect loss\nof bighorn sheep, mule deer, antelope, and sage-grouse habitat functionality.\nThank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact\nWill Schultz, Habitat Protection Program Supervisor, at 307-777-4587."},{"page":62,"startToken":25539,"endToken":25647,"text":"58\nSecretary Reese\nDecember 31, 2025\nPage 9 of 9 - WER 12249.25\nSincerely,\nAng Em\nAngi Bruce\nDirector\nWyoming Game and Fish Department\nAB/ws/ac\nU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service\nChris Wichmann, Wyoming Department of Agriculture\nCITATIONS\nRaabe, J.K. and M.A. Bozek. 2012. Quantity, structure, and habitat selection of natural\nspawning reefs by Walleyes in a north temperate lake: a multiscale analysis. Transactions\nof the American Fisheries Society 141(4):1097-1108.\nSpraker, T. R., C. P. Hibler, G. G. Schoonveld, and W. S. Adney. 1984. Pathologic changes and\nmicroorganisms found in bighorn sheep during a stress-related die-off. Journal of Wildlife\nDiseases. 20: 319-327."},{"page":63,"startToken":25647,"endToken":25937,"text":"59\nAPPENDIX A\nWyoming Game and Fish Department\nConserving Wildlife, Serving People\nGovernor Mark Gordon • Director Angi Bruce\nCommissioners\nAshlee Lundvall, Preside\nMark Jolovich, Vice Presider\nRusty Bell\nBill Mai\nCarlislo Foruy\" Haskell\ncJonn mascrson\nKenneth D. Roberts\n12/9/2025\nMEMORANDUM\nTO:\nFROM:\nAngelique Curtis, Habitat Protection Program Biologist\nJessica Jennings, Wildlife Disease Specialist - Laboratory Manager\nCOPY TO: Daryl Lutz, Lander Wildlife Management Coordinator\nSUBJECT:\nFerris-Seminoe bighom sheep herd health status\nThe Ferris-Seminoe bighorn sheep herd is currently considered one of the \"cleanest\" and robust\nbighorn sheep herds in Wyoming based on pathogen presence, lack of mortality events due to\ndisease, and population size. Since 2011, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (Department)\nhas been conducting annual pathogen surveillance on bighorn sheep throughout the state; live\nanimal sampling is dependent on current research/management objectives; mortality sampling is\nopportunistic. The Department has collected 186 samples to detect respiratory pathogens (128\nfrom live animals and 58 from dead animals) from bighorn sheep in the Ferris-Seminoe herd unit.\nTo date, respiratory pathogens detected in this herd are limited to leukotoxin positive Mannheimia\nspp. (no M. haemolytica detected) and Pasteurella multocida. No disease related mortality events\nMycoplasma ovipmuemoniae, has never been detected within this herd\nAlthough, there are a few other Wyoming bighorn sheep herds that have only had Mannheimid\nspp. and Pasteurella multocida detected, these herds are not considered as potential transplant\nsource herds due to the small size of those herds, the intensity of disease monitoring in those herds.\nand mortality events due to other disease. Currently the Ferris-Seminoe herd is considered the\n\"cleanest/healthiest\" bighor sheep herd in Wyoming and is the only one that would be considered\n(307) 777-4600 | wgf-contact@wyo.gov | 5400 Bishop Blvd., Cheyenne, WY 82006"},{"page":64,"startToken":25937,"endToken":26478,"text":"60 \nSenator BARRASSO. It’s critically important that Wyoming’s con-\ncerns are thoughtfully and carefully considered in this process. So, \nMadam Chairman, I would ask you and the others if you would \ncommit to taking a renewed look at the state’s comments and con-\nsider their incorporation into your final decision. \nMs. SWETT. Thank you for the question, Senator. \nI know these types of projects have great impact on community. \nThey are very emotional for both sides, and I am fully committed \nto making a measured decision based on the record and working \nwith your staff to arrive at the right choice for the American peo-\nple. \nSenator BARRASSO. Thank you. \nAnyone else want to weigh in on this? \nMs. CHANG. Perhaps I could just add, Senator—thank you for \nyour question—that hydropower is an extremely valuable resource, \nincluding the Seminoe project, and I, too, will commit to making \nsure that the state’s comments are considered in the record. \nSenator BARRASSO. Great. \nMadam Chairman, for you, and then anyone else: western elec-\ntricity markets are evolving rapidly, as you all know. This comes \nfrom the implementation of new day-ahead markets. It comes from \nthe new Regional Organization for Western Energy and Southwest \nPower Pool’s expansion to the West. The goal is unified and coordi-\nnated electricity transmission. While participation in this new \nmodel can be a good thing, states like Wyoming need a meaningful \nvoice in governance. Wyoming is the number one electricity ex-\nporter in the Western Interconnection. We have the highest net ex-\nports of energy per capita. That makes Wyoming the backbone of \nthe grid. \nSo, what steps is FERC planning to take to ensure meaningful \nstate participation as the extended day-ahead market in western \nenergy and balanced markets evolve? \nMs. SWETT. Thank you for the question, Senator. As a core prin-\nciple in my leadership, I take our country’s system of federalism \nvery seriously. And state voices must be heard, and I think I have \nshown that I really do care about states through our 206 orders in \nJune, where we carved out specific transparency to give our state \ncounterparts the tools that they need to ensure that the markets \nwork correctly. And that commitment that I have made in those or-\nders, I commit to you as well, and in other parts of the country that \nare not covered by them, and particularly when it comes to the \nWest, we are watching very closely as those markets evolve. We \nhave ordered the SPP and CAISO to come back to us with a report \non how the seam is going to work and what issues they see arising \nso that we can all land this ship together. And the states are cer-\ntainly a huge part of that. So, I commit to you, taking their con-\ncerns very seriously. \nSenator BARRASSO. Great. Anyone else want to respond on that? \nMr. LACERTE. Yes, Senator, I just wanted to echo the Chairman’s \nsentiments on this and also recognize that many western states \nreached out last week after an order to require SPP and CAISO to \nwork together and report back to us on these seams issues. I think \nthat will very favorably involve the states. Some of them specifi-"},{"page":65,"startToken":26478,"endToken":26766,"text":"61 \ncally mentioned it to us. But I am in full lockstep with the Chair-\nman and the rest of the Commissioners. \nSenator BARRASSO. Great. \nMs. SEE. I will just add to that that we strongly respect state au-\ntonomy when it comes to choice about what markets to join or not \nto join. But once those are formed, we take seriously our responsi-\nbility as well to ensure just and reasonable rates and a fully effec-\ntive market. And an important part of that is who has a voice in \nthe market and in those decisions. So, yes, I take the state voice \nvery seriously. \nSenator BARRASSO. Great. Thank you. \nThank you, Mr. Chairman. \nThe CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Barrasso. \nWe will go next to Senator King. \nSenator KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. \nFirst, I want to thank you for modeling how government is sup-\nposed to work. This Commission has worked together very effec-\ntively without reference to partisan interests. \nThe six orders that you issued in June, I think, were, again, a \nmodel of prudent regulation and exercising of the powers that you \nhave under the Federal Power Act. So, thank you. It’s not often \nthat you get that kind of—I just wanted to share that. We have \nhad a lot of talk about GETs, and I always show what GETs really \nis all about. This is a typical high-tension transmission piece of \nwire, and this is a carbon fiber-based transmission wire. This one \ncarries twice the power that this one does. So, you can replace your \nconductor without new poles, without a new right-of-way, without \na lot of new civil works, and double the capacity. \n[Photograph of the two conductors follows:]"},{"page":66,"startToken":26766,"endToken":26767,"text":"62"},{"page":67,"startToken":26767,"endToken":27397,"text":"63 \nSenator KING. So, that’s really what we’re talking about here. \nAnd Chairman Swett, I took a little issue with you. I understand \nthat you can’t mandate a technology, but your responsibility is just \nand reasonable rates. And it seems to me if the transmission folks \nare taking actions that don’t make economic sense and will penal-\nize their ratepayers, that does give you a hook to look more care-\nfully at how they actually do it. Now, having said all that, I think \none of the ways that you could be very helpful to us is, how do we \nincentivize these kinds of decisions, because right now the incen-\ntive on the transmission developer is to invest. They make a rate \nof return on the amount of money, the capital that they put in. \nThat’s an incentive to gold plate. That’s an incentive to build more \nthan you really need to build, and it’s a disincentive to do some-\nthing like this. \nSo, I think one of the things we need to look at is, how do we \nprovide shared savings, for example, or some kind of incentive to \nthe companies to make these kinds of investments because the cost \nof the grid enhancement is going up in a huge way over the next \nseveral years. It has gone from about 30 percent of electric bills to \n40 or 50 percent today. And this cost is going to be overwhelming \nin the next five or ten years if we don’t do it in a smart way. So, \nChair Swett, I commend you for what you are doing, but I hope \nthat you will think about the incentives, and also a little more lee-\nway on just and reasonable rates. \nMs. SWETT. Thank you, Senator. I am absolutely thinking about \nthat. In fact, I have convened a task force and a commission of \nsome of our best thinkers to think about the GETs issue and how \nwe can encourage it further, including potential incentives, which \nhave to be landed squarely to show that they will result in cost \nsavings to American ratepayers. So, we have a lot of utilities across \nthe country who have proactively started employing GETs. \nAnd now we have some of the data from the cost savings that \nthose specific technologies are able to produce for those utilities \nand their customers. So, FERC staff is actually working with those, \ntrying to understand their real-life results and trying to figure out \nif there is a way that we can incentivize the increased use of GETs \nand ATTs outside even of our June orders for filings for utilities \nwho can come in and actually show how much cost savings the \ntechnologies that they are looking at can bring to their consumers. \nSo, that is definitely a path forward that we are open to and ac-\ntively pursuing. \nSenator KING. And I think the other thing I hope that you will \npursue, and Commissioner Rosner, you mentioned this, is the en-\ncouragement of the use of—we are talking, we are saying automa-\ntion, but it’s really AI, in resolving the backlogs in the queue be-\ncause that’s a huge problem. And I think—restate the numbers \nthat you gave from the number of days to down to ten days. It was \nquite remarkable. \nMr. ROSNER. In MISO, which is in the Midwest, it was, their old \nway—686 days. The new way—less than ten days. \nSenator KING. I mean, that speaks for itself. So, I hope, again, \nyou will figure out ways to incentivize that kind of activity. And \none way to do it is to say, look, if you do it the old way, you are \nnot imposing just and reasonable rates on your ratepayers. I mean,"},{"page":68,"startToken":27397,"endToken":27948,"text":"64 \nthat’s one of your basic responsibilities. I just want to say a quick \nword about permitting reform. I have been involved in all the per-\nmitting reform discussions here. I am a former developer. I get it. \nI understand the problems with permitting. But permitting reform, \nfor me, has to involve an even-handed process throughout. And one \nof the problems we have right now is, we could have all the reform \nin the world, but this administration has its thumb on the scale of \nrenewables. \nSo, there is no point in having—it would be like two racers going \nalong and one has a clear hundred-yard dash and the other has a \nhurdle at the end. And that’s what’s happening now. The Secretary \nof the Interior has, I don’t know, a hundred projects, wind and \nsolar, sitting on his desk. The Army clearinghouse—the military \nclearinghouse on wind projects has, I think, 185 projects that have \njust been arbitrarily stopped without any rationale, without any ex-\nplanation. \nSo, I am all for permitting reform, but not if it ends up as a prac-\ntical matter only reforming the permitting for fossil fuels, and the \nopportunity for renewables, which, by the way, are the cheapest \nand fastest to market of any energy source today—unless the play-\ning field is level, count me out. \nThank you, Mr. Chairman. \nThe CHAIRMAN. Thank you so much, Senator King. \nWe will turn next to Senator McCormick. \nSenator MCCORMICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Mem-\nber. We are at a critical juncture for powering our country, and the \ninvestments we make now will determine whether America’s man-\nufacturing and technology future is built here or somewhere else. \nRight now, demand for electricity is growing faster than at any \npoint in decades, and supply, as we have established, is not keep-\ning pace. Two forces are driving this demand. First is the AI revo-\nlution. This changes the way we work and operate, creating new \njobs and opportunities, and companies are bringing manufacturing \nback to the United States, instead of overseas. That’s really great \nnews for America, but only if we have the power to run these oper-\nations that come with each of them. \nWhile states like Maryland and New York are shutting down \nbaseload generation, I am proud to report that Pennsylvania re-\nmains a net energy exporter. We are the nation’s third largest elec-\ntricity producer. Pennsylvania is powering and manufacturing the \nAI revolution and our nation’s defense capabilities all at once. \nHowever, we must do more. And a brief look at the scale of this \nchallenge shows us that for nearly 20 years, power demand was \nflat, at nearly half a percent growth annually. From 2020 to 2026, \nwe saw electricity demand increase, growing by an average of 1.7 \npercent per year. By 2030, our electricity demand could jump 20 \npercent. Think about that. In ten years, we have gone from half a \npercent growth to 20, and our supply is nowhere close to keeping \nup. \nEarlier this month, Bank of America reported that the U.S. could \nface an electricity generation shortfall of 100 gigawatts between \n2026 and 2030. \nCloser to home, this all comes to rest in Pennsylvania at the \nPJM interconnection, which serves my home State of Pennsylvania."},{"page":69,"startToken":27948,"endToken":28514,"text":"65 \nTheir most recent auction came up short—below their reserve mar-\ngin targets. I applaud FERC for the work it is doing to advance \nPresident Trump’s agenda to power the great American comeback, \nbut we need to do more. \nThe demand is coming, with advanced manufacturing and AI \npulling it forward quickly, and we need to get more electrons on \nthe grid, which leads me to questions focused on PJM, and I will \nstart with the Chairman. Tomorrow, FERC will convene a con-\nference to discuss ways to improve PJM’s governance and stake-\nholder processes, including their ability to address market needs in \na timely and efficient manner. Could you elaborate on why this \nconference is needed and some of the governance and stakeholder \nchallenges that FERC and PJM hope to address? \nMs. SWETT. It’s my favorite topic. \nSenator MCCORMICK. Good, mine too. \nMs. SWETT. Good question, Senator. \nWell, I don’t need to tell you that PJM powers the homes of 67 \nmillion Americans, and as the largest and oldest market in the \ncountry, it is probably performing the worst. And I am very con-\ncerned. That is why we are convening this tech conference tomor-\nrow. And it’s not necessarily PJM’s fault. We don’t want to point \nfingers. \nA lot of the reason for the tech conference tomorrow is because \nI am a litigator. I want a record on (1) what the problems are, and \n(2) what the solutions are. So, we have instructed the people who \nwe have handpicked and chosen, all of our panelists tomorrow, \nbased on what they will bring to the table for solutions, and that \nis at every level. It’s the federal level, the state level, the utilities, \nthe transmission owners, hyperscalers, all types of market partici-\npants. We are optimistic that people will be able to coalesce around \nidentifying what should change in the market by the end of tomor-\nrow and the comments filed after so that we can give clear direc-\ntion. And success to me looks like a PJM, in the near future, that \nis able to propose solutions quickly, with some type of member sup-\nport that is clear, and to make those filings, and excellent filings \nat FERC, so that we can move expediently to have this market \nserve the country efficiently. \nSenator MCCORMICK. Very good, thank you. \nAnd I will, just as a follow-up to that, I will turn to you, Mr. \nRosner. One of the concerns we have as an exporter within PJM— \nPennsylvania is an exporter—that decisions made within PJM in-\ncreasingly have enormous consequences for ratepayers, and we \nwant to ensure that no single state, no individual state, can distort \nthe regional market in a way that disadvantages Pennsylvania’s \nconsumers and ratepayers. Can you comment on how FERC might \nplay a role in ensuring that doesn’t happen? \nMr. ROSNER. Well, thank you for the question, Senator, and I \nagree with your focus on PJM, and I am looking forward to the con-\nference tomorrow, and you know, I will just say a few things. First \nof all, making sure that all customers across PJM are treated fairly \nand that they pay for the power that they receive in a way that \nis transparent and that is consistent with our cost-causation rules, \nthat’s one of my goals, and that is how we will review future pro-\nposals from PJM."},{"page":70,"startToken":28514,"endToken":29110,"text":"66 \nThe other thing I would just say is, you know, I think it’s very \ngood and it’s the appropriate time to have this conversation about \ngovernance of PJM. I don’t want to lose sight of the fact that it \ndoes save consumers billions every year in terms of efficient oper-\nating, operation of the whole grid, and efficient planning of the \ntransmission system. But also, none of that works if you don’t have \nbuy-in from states. And so, one of my priorities throughout the \nCommission’s work is that we set the market rules, and that re-\nsults in price signals to invest. But none of that goes anywhere if \nthe states don’t believe in the way that that price was derived. \nOn the transmission side of the coin, we set the rules about how \nyou plan the grid. And one of the things that I pushed for in Order \nNo. 1920 was let’s have the states come to the table and agree on \nthe scenarios, the way we plan that transmission, the way the cost \nof that transmission is paid for. It seems like common sense to me \nthat states and their utilities should agree on this, and that’s \nwhere I pushed to make FERC regulations involve the states more \nbecause ultimately we depend on the states to give the permits to \nbuild power plants, transmission lines, to do all those things. \nAnd we have talked a lot about grid efficiency and GETs and ad-\nvanced transmission technologies. Not only is that going to save \npeople money, but also, when we do need to build something, \nAmericans, consumers, they are smart. They want to know that \nyou really needed that wire before you put a new wire in. And \nthose wires, or pipelines, or whatever it is, power plants, they have \nbig impacts. And so, we need to show people and be transparent \nthat we tried everything we could, we got every last ounce of effi-\nciency out of the grid before we did something new. \nSenator MCCORMICK. Very good. Thank you. \nThe CHAIRMAN. Senator Cortez Masto. \nSenator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. \nWelcome to all the Commissioners. Thank you for being here. I \nwant to talk about the growing hydro demand, and your own data \nshows increased demand for hydro licensing activities in the next \ndecade, with more than 40 percent of the non-federal hydropower \nfleet due to be relicensed, I think, by 2035. For that reason, Sen-\nator Daines and I, actually working together, introduced S. 3500, \nwhich is the Hydropower Licensing Transparency Act, and it re-\nquires annual FERC reports to Congress on pending projects and \naction plans. But I know last year FERC sought public feedback on \nmethods to streamline its review of hydropower facilities and I was \nwondering, maybe, Commissioner See, can you give us a report on \nthat, and maybe an update on where you are with that particular \nitem? \nMs. SEE. I am happy to, Senator Cortez Masto. I agree with you, \nthose statistics about the amount of work coming in are sobering, \nand in order to keep this critical resource online in so many parts \nof the country, so, we take that seriously and really welcome your \nleadership and others in Congress for accountability from us and \nways we can continue to streamline the process. \nWe are hard at work at that, too. As you are well aware, our re-\nview, when it comes to hydro, was very expansive, considering a \nhuge range of factors, and we need to do that job well. But I believe"},{"page":71,"startToken":29110,"endToken":29679,"text":"67 \nthat the best kind of permitting is transparent and efficient and le-\ngally durable. \nSo, part of what we are in the process of right now is, we asked \nfor comment about ways that we can learn from lessons in permit-\nting streamlining in the natural gas context and how, potentially, \ncan we apply a blanket program into the hydro area. That is still \nongoing, so, I can’t talk about where we are ultimately going to go, \nbut I can tell you that that’s something that is top-of-mind for us, \nis to figure out, are there types of routine projects or changes or \namendments that do not need a full case-specific review and can \nhave a more streamlined process that still complies with our statu-\ntory responsibilities. That’s a program that has been really effec-\ntive for decades on the natural gas side. Of course, the statutes are \ndifferent and the interests are different, but we have decades of ex-\nperience within the Commission that we are really leveraging to \nfigure out how do we take those lessons and bring it to stream-\nlining in this important—— \nSenator CORTEZ MASTO. And so, will the public have meaningful \ninput in this process as we are looking at hydroelectric? \nMs. SEE. Absolutely. \nSenator CORTEZ MASTO. And the blanket certificates? \nMs. SEE. We have already sought comment on the initial proc-\nesses there, and as the Commission moves forward, you know, on \nnext steps, there would also be a public comment process to make \nsure that we are considering all the relevant factors. \nSenator CORTEZ MASTO. And can you give us just a broad \ntimeline of when we will have some sort of report or conclusion? \nMs. SEE. I can’t speak to the internal time frame within the \nCommission. \nSenator CORTEZ MASTO. Okay. \nMs. SEE. We are still working on that. What I can tell you is, \nit’s something that we are—it is top-of-mind for us. I know I talk \nabout it all the time when we have our regular updates with other \noffices and across the agency. \nSenator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you. I also want to commend you \non the work that you are doing to address and combat market ma-\nnipulation fraud. I thank you for that collective work. I understand, \nand I think it was mentioned in the opening, that in April, FERC \nissued a penalty order in its enforcement action against American \nEfficient after uncovering what FERC described as one of the larg-\nest and most brazen fraud schemes in its history. And I thank you \nfor that. I am curious, and maybe, Chairman Swett, if you could \nspeak to other efforts to combat market manipulation and also \nknow that to assist in your enforcement efforts, Senator Cantwell \nand I introduced legislation. We both were very concerned in the \npast, coming from the State of Nevada, about market manipulation \nthat we have seen in the past. And we reintroduced it. It’s the En-\nergy Consumer Protection Act, and it gives FERC the authority to \nban or limit traders who are found to repeatedly manipulate elec-\ntricity and natural gas markets. But if you could talk a little bit \nabout your focus in this space. \nMs. SWETT. Thank you for the question, Senator. \nI was an enforcement prosecutor at FERC, and as a baby lawyer \nwho grew up in FERC’s enforcement office, they have a fond place"},{"page":72,"startToken":29679,"endToken":30258,"text":"68 \nin my heart. I know how diligent the staff works, how passionate \nthey are, and I share that passion. \nWhen we are facing increasing energy bills in this country, there \nis absolutely no room for fraud. There was not before, but now \nevery single penny matters, and I take the enforcement program \nvery seriously. I am very supportive of it. I was extremely proud \nto issue the biggest penalty in FERC history under my tenure to \nAmerican Efficient. And that is a signal that that type of market \nmanipulation and activity will not be countenanced by this Com-\nmission under my leadership. \nWe are looking at the enforcement program with fresh eyes to \nlook at what type of training may be helpful for them. As someone \nwho has worked in private practice, I have had a lot of litigation \ntraining and I am very aware of how training can improve the \nquality of work. And my goal for our enforcement program is excel-\nlence. I have very high standards for the cases that we bring and \nthe rigor with which the staff defends them. So, I am very person-\nally involved in their activities. \nSenator CORTEZ MASTO. I know my time is up. At some point in \ntime, I would like to—and maybe we will submit this for the \nrecord—I am concerned about staffing, brain drain, loss of staff, \nwhether it’s DOGE or other issues causing it, I would like to hear. \nSo, we are going to submit that for the record as well, where we \ncan help in Congress to address this issue, if it is an issue. \nThank you. \nMs. SWETT. Thank you. \nThe CHAIRMAN. Senator Hyde-Smith. \nSenator HYDE-SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all \nfor being here today and being so committed and dedicated. I cer-\ntainly appreciate that. We talk a lot about affordability, and in \nyour testimonies and your written statements, you know, it was \none of the top priorities. In this administration, in this commission, \nyou continue to take action to be so conscious of that, that rate-\npayers aren’t burdened by the higher cost. And Mississippi, my \nhome state, continues to be at the forefront of safeguarding rate-\npayers by ensuring companies, like data centers, pay their fair \nshare for large loads. So, I want to talk about the large-load rates. \nAnd states are passing legislation that these companies have to \npay upfront anticipated additional costs because they are just pre-\nparing themselves for that. But what mechanisms is FERC imple-\nmenting, specifically for large-load customers, to pay upfront pay-\nments and commitments to maintain minimum financial contribu-\ntions to keep the rates from rising? And anybody that wants to \ntake that, or all of you can take that. \nMs. SWETT. Thank you for the question, Senator. I will take the \nfirst crack. So, our approach to that issue, which is squarely in \nfront of us for this country and also raised by the President in his \nRatepayer Protection Pledge, is a twofold approach. We are casting \na wide net across the country, which we have all talked about in \nour June orders. I am happy to get into that in more detail, if you \nwould like. But before I do that, we are also looking at the minu-\ntiae. We have agreements filed with us across the country from \nvarious utilities and large-load arrangements on almost a daily \nbasis where they are proposing deals and interconnection arrange-"},{"page":73,"startToken":30258,"endToken":30843,"text":"69 \nments that implicate hundreds of millions of dollars. And we look \nat those arrangements with a fine-tooth comb to ensure that the \nupgrades that are required by large load are not shouldered by con-\nsumers. So, we look at it on a case-by-case basis and also across \nthe markets. \nSenator HYDE-SMITH. Certainly. \nMr. ROSNER. Thank you, Senator Hyde-Smith, for the question. \nAnd yes, I will elaborate a little bit on the orders to show cause, \nand I will just say what is on the orders because they are pending \nin front of the Commission. We are attacking this problem with a \ncouple of different prongs. \nFirst of all, we are requiring contracts. And one of the things I \nlike to say is, fundamentally, this problem is a math problem. It’s \nan accounting problem. It’s not a glamorous problem to solve. It’s \nkind of like let’s figure out how much infrastructure we built for \nyou and then let’s make sure that gets on your bill. And we are \nrequiring contracts to make sure that we don’t have stranded costs \nif you leave early. We are requiring contracts that if we have to \nbuild a lot of infrastructure up front and the project isn’t energized, \nthat we have a way to build the project for that cost, and it doesn’t \ngo to other consumers. \nWe have talked a lot about advanced transmission technologies \nand GETs. We have a strong requirement in our orders to show \ncause. It actually goes further than any Commission order on con-\nsideration of GETs, and it does that by not just asking the utilities \nto consider an alternative to spend, but also to use a power-flow \nstudy that can actually model the advanced transmission tech-\nnology and provide a public report on why you couldn’t do it, if you \ncan’t do it. \nAnd then, we also have some transparency. Because you men-\ntioned Mississippi, I have met with the folks from Entergy, with \ntheir team there, and heard about the work that they are doing at \nthe state level. What we have heard from state commissioners is, \nwhen your interstate transmission projects show up at our commis-\nsion, we don’t always know what was spent for who. And so, in our \nrules, we are asking people, if you build a network upgrade to \nserve a large load, you have to make that public and let the state \ncommission know, so that they can then use their large-load tariff \nand charge it to the right customer. \nAnd so, none of this is perfect, but it’s a big step in the right di-\nrection, and we are going to get some public comment and some \niteration on it and we are going to keep working with our state col-\nleagues to get this right, because fundamentally, this is basic math. \nIt’s addition and subtraction. I really believe we can do this. \nSenator HYDE-SMITH. So, is the state legislation necessary with \nyour contracts? \nMr. ROSNER. Ultimately, under the Federal Power Act, the re-\nsponsibilities for the Commission are separate from those from the \nstate commission. So, the state commissions, they are responsible \nfor giving the bills to the end-use customers, whether it’s, you \nknow, a small business, a home, or a data center. We are not re-\nsponsible for that. We give the bills to the transmission system cus-\ntomer, which tends to be like an Entergy in Mississippi. And so, \nwe need to work with the states, and frankly, I don’t think the"},{"page":74,"startToken":30843,"endToken":31418,"text":"70 \ncountry has appreciated that 30 states—more than 30 states, actu-\nally—have these rules either under development or in place. And \nagain, they are not perfect. We are learning a lot as we go, but \nthat’s all well and good. And so, I am optimistic that we can make \nprogress to protect regular ratepayers. \nSenator HYDE-SMITH. Thank you so much, and my time is up. \nThe CHAIRMAN. Senator Hirono. \nSenator HIRONO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the Com-\nmissioners for coming to testify today. I believe that each of you \ntestified that energy affordability, the cost to consumers, is a major \npriority for all of you. Now, when this regime puts its thumb on \nthe scale in favor of fossil fuels and not so much for renewables, \nI think that is not keeping consumer costs uppermost in mind, \nwhich, I believe, it should. \nFor the Chairman: in May, a company called Longboard started \nthe pre-filing process with FERC for an offshore natural gas import \nterminal pipeline in Hawaii. And this is really the first time that \nany entity in Hawaii is engaging with FERC, because up to now, \nyou have had little to no jurisdiction over the energy market in Ha-\nwaii. So, the terminal would fuel a gas-fired power plant. The par-\nent company, JERA, is also proposing to build. And the parent \ncompany, as I mentioned, JERA, has indicated to the Hawaii Pub-\nlic Utilities Commission its interest in being a regulated generation \nutility in the state. When FERC evaluates the economic need for \nthe offshore facilities, will FERC consider whether Hawaii should \nhave two public utilities providing energy to the people of Hawaii? \nMs. SWETT. Thank you for the question, Senator. And I do love \nHawaii. I have spent some time there. Yes, I commit to you that \nany application that comes before us, including this one, we have \nto do an analysis in order to authorize an application that involves \nnatural gas to look at the public need for that project, and that in-\ncludes a very rigorous economic analysis that would also include \nthe factors that you have mentioned. \nSenator HIRONO. What other factors would you take into consid-\neration as you deal with Longboard’s application to FERC? \nMs. SWETT. So, there are requirements under the Administrative \nProcedure Act, NEPA, and the Natural Gas Act, that say what type \nof analysis FERC has to go through in order to grant a certificate \nof public convenience and necessity. So, comments that are raised \non the record, and also, typically, there will be a whole list of envi-\nronmental factors and economic factors, and I am happy to have \nFERC staff work with your staff to help you understand that proc-\ness better since this is the first time. \nSenator HIRONO. Just so I understand, FERC would consider en-\nvironmental factors in its decision on Longboard’s application? \nMs. SWETT. We do have to examine the impact on the environ-\nment of a project, and those are the direct impacts of a project on \nthe local environment, and there is a very set way in which we go \nabout looking at that. \nSenator HIRONO. But didn’t the Supreme Court’s decision limit \nFERC’s consideration of downstream factors such as, I would as-\nsume, their environmental factors? \nMs. SWETT. We no longer look at the downstream impacts of a \nproject. However, we do look at the direct impact of a project. That"},{"page":75,"startToken":31418,"endToken":31960,"text":"71 \nis still required under law, and we take that very seriously, and \nthat would involve the direct impact upon a community. \nSenator HIRONO. How important is it to you that the applicant \nengages a community in its project? In other words, to get input \nfrom the community, is that something that FERC would require \nof the applicant? \nMs. SWETT. Well, FERC actually has an Office of Public Partici-\npation, which is statutorily required by Congress. We help engage \ncommunities and, in my experience, generally, just stepping out of \nmy chairman role, I find that infrastructure projects that do engage \ncommunities have greater success if they are able to educate and \nwork with the community and understand their concerns. \nSenator HIRONO. So, one of the concerns now is how much these \ndata centers—maybe this is something that Commissioner Chang \ncan respond to, because I believe you talked about it—but the use \nof energy by these data centers, and what is FERC doing to make \nsure that the costs of these data centers do not fall unfairly upon \nratepayers? \nMs. CHANG. Thank you for the question, Senator. A part of our \n206 that we discussed here repeatedly is a component with cost \nshift—looking at the potential cost shift, and therefore, allocating \nthe proper cost associated with network upgrades. So, with the \ncombination of our 206 and the components about cost shifting, or \nlimiting cost shifting, as well as transparency of the cost that’s trig-\ngered by data centers or other large loads, as they connect to the \ngrid, I think we are poised to address the issue of cost shifting \nwhen it comes to network upgrades. \nSenator HIRONO. Yes, I think that the cost shifting is a definite \nproblem. In fact, some jurisdictions are passing legislation to pre-\nvent data centers from even being built in their locations. \nThank you, Mr. Chairman. \nThe CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. \nSenator Daines. \nSenator DAINES. Chairman Lee, thank you, as well as Ranking \nMember Heinrich. \nCommissioners, it’s good to have you all here today, all five in \none place. It’s a great sight to see this today. \nIf there is one source of energy that has bipartisan cooperation \nand support, it’s hydropower. It’s a renewable source of energy, it’s \ngreat baseload power, it’s low-cost. This week, I introduced the Hy-\ndropower Licensing Affordability Act with Senators Risch and Mur-\nkowski. This bill makes a small but very important change to the \nFederal Power Act, because right now resource agencies can put \nmandatory conditions on hydropower licenses. While FERC is the \nagency that grants the permits for non-federal hydropower projects, \nresource agencies like the Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife \nService can set mandatory conditions on a license that FERC—you \nall—issue. This can also happen during a re-licensing of an existing \nproject. Unfortunately, this process can be abused. Resource agen-\ncies can end up on a wish list of projects that have no direct con-\nnection to a hydropower dam. This bill is very simple. It requires \nall conditions to be directly related to a project. This just makes \nsense. In fact, this week, I sent a letter to FERC, the Department \nof the Interior, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department"},{"page":76,"startToken":31960,"endToken":32472,"text":"72 \nof Commerce asking them to initiate a rulemaking to address hy-\ndropower licensing, including mandatory conditions—I am going to \nsound like Chairman Lee now—under Section 4(e) and Section 18 \nof the Federal Power Act. That’s my best impression of Mike Lee \nI can do right there. \nFor each of you, with 40 percent of the nation’s hydropower fleet \nbeing up for relicensing—40 percent in the next four years—do you \nagree that we need to streamline and look for ways to simplify the \nhydropower licensing and relicensing process at a time when we \nare constrained as we look forward here? I would just like to hear \nfrom each of you. Do you think we need to simplify and streamline \nit? \nMr. ROSNER. Yes. \nSenator DAINES. Commissioner. \nMs. SEE. Absolutely. \nSenator DAINES. Let us go left to right here. \nMs. SWETT. Yes. \nSenator DAINES. Thank you. \nMs. CHANG. Yes. \nMr. LACERTE. You know my answer, Senator, yes. \nSenator DAINES. Okay. Nobody said heck yes or more than that, \nbut good. I am glad to hear yes. \nNow for the Chairman, Chairman Swett, there are multiple large \nhydropower projects up for relicensing in Montana, including the \nThompson Falls Dam. Will you work closely with resource agencies \nand push back against indirect or costly mandatory conditions im-\nposed by agencies on existing projects? \nMs. SWETT. Thank you, Senator. \nYes, we are spending an inordinate amount of time on hydro dur-\ning this Commission right now, more than this Commission ever \nhas focused on it because it is so important, because those licenses \nare coming up for renewal. And I, myself, am personally, actively, \npushing back on those types of conditions when I become aware of \nthem and they hold our processes up. \nSenator DAINES. Thank you. I mean, this ought to be easy—kind \nof ‘‘Licensing 101.’’ There are much more difficult and complicated \nissues in front of us, and thank you for your support in finding \nways to move this faster at a time when we need more hydropower \nenergy. \nChairman Swett, in May, President Trump signed my bill. It was \nSenate bill 1020, to extend certain hydropower licenses for an addi-\ntional six years. Could you give me the status of FERC’s implemen-\ntation of that particular law? \nMs. SWETT. Yes, thank you, Senator. And I applaud your bill. I \nthink it’s a great idea, because of the delays that FERC cannot con-\ntrol, that is very helpful. We have received requests for extensions \nof construction deadlines under your statute and we are processing \nthem in accordance with the terms of your statute. We have not ac-\ntually granted any requests under the new law yet, but that is sim-\nply a function of timing, and I believe that it is imminent. \nSenator DAINES. Chairman Swett, thank you. I appreciate that \nupdate, and thanks for the 5–0 vote, by the way, on streamlining. \nI want to move to natural gas for a moment, if I might. Montana \nrecently built a brand-new natural gas peaking plant in Laurel,"},{"page":77,"startToken":32472,"endToken":33033,"text":"73 \nMontana, just outside of Billings, to provide reliable and affordable \nelectricity and maintain the stability of the grid. This is the type \nof project we need to see installed across the United States. Unfor-\ntunately, we are seeing long delays for permitting at the federal \nand even at the state level. I will keep working on the state level. \nYou can help me on the federal level. Commissioner LaCerte, how \ndo you see changes proposed by FERC, including updates to the \nblanket certificate program, helping to expand natural gas elec-\ntricity production and leading to lower prices and a more reliable \ngrid? \nMr. LACERTE. That’s a great question, Senator. I think the blan-\nket programs, whether it be natural gas, whether it be hydro, I \nthink that they are going to allow us to focus on the hard issues \nso that the small issues don’t have to be litigated before us. And \nit matters because time allocation—we have so many things pend-\ning before us, and I am aware of how big of a challenge it has been \non the permitting side. So, it allows us to contract, to focus on our \npriorities under the Natural Gas Act, to focus that time and effort \non our staffing considerations, and on passing the most impactful \nprojects that we can. \nSenator DAINES. It’s a big help because, you know, we are grate-\nful we have a lot of intermittent sources of power as well. We’ve \ngot big wind projects. We’ve got big solar projects. As we say in \nMontana, the wind doesn’t always blow, the sun doesn’t always \nshine, and to have that ability to ramp up and down here with nat-\nural gas is a way to keep grid stability and more affordability. So, \nthank you for that. \nBack to you, Mr. Chairman. \nThe CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. \nLet’s see, Senator Gallego, you’re up next. \nSenator GALLEGO. Thank you, Chairman Lee and Ranking Mem-\nber Heinrich, and thank you to all five FERC Commissioners for \nyour participation in this hearing. A lot of FERC’s work is closely \ntied to headline news—data centers, energy prices, reliability, and \nmore. So, I appreciate the chance to talk about those things and \nmore today, and I echo the hopes of my fellow Committee members \nthat FERC remains independent and focused on solving the very \nreal issues facing America’s energy system. In conversations at \nlarge around permitting reform, one of the most common phrases \nthat we hear is permitting certainty. \nCommissioner Chang, you and I recently discussed how permit-\nting certainty is vital, not only in generation, but in delivering en-\nergy resources of all types across the country. Can you elaborate \non how permitting uncertainty in transmission and delivery of en-\nergy translates to higher costs for customers across all of our en-\nergy types? \nMs. CHANG. Thank you very much for that question, Senator. \nI am glad you raised that because recently we approved a pro-\nposal from Southwest Power Pool that uses a consolidated planning \nprocess to provide cost certainty for generators that want to inter-\nconnect. I think this is very innovative, and sort of breaking the \ntraditional approach to make sure that generators who want to \ninterconnect have more information up front so that they can make \ntheir decisions about how much they want to interconnect to the"},{"page":78,"startToken":33033,"endToken":33583,"text":"74 \ngrid, and how much potential transmission upgrades they might \ntrigger so that they don’t find that out later in the process and \nthen have to reassess whether the projects that they are developing \nwould be economically viable. \nSo, I do believe a consolidated process between the interconnec-\ntion process so that we understand what generators can inter-\nconnect and what cost they might have to pay for upgrades and \ntransmission planning, I think that is an appropriate approach \nthat other regions could probably take an example from. \nSenator GALLEGO. Thank you, Commissioner. \nCommissioner Rosner, in recent remarks, the Commission has \nexpressed support for the parallel market development in the West. \nIn last Thursday’s meeting, you characterized this as a win for con-\nsumers. As SPP markets and CAISO’s day-ahead market continue \nto expand and develop, it’s clear that SPP and CAISO must work \ntogether to ensure that energy remains reliable and affordable for \nindividuals and businesses in their markets. FERC recently issued \nan order directing a joint report from both the market operators on \nthis issue and others. \nSo, my question is, how does FERC plan to support and require \nlong-term collaboration between SPP and CAISO after this report \nis filed? \nMr. ROSNER. Well, thank you, Senator, and I think it’s an excit-\ning time for markets, especially in the West. I have been out to \nvisit recently, and you know, it’s a wonderful thing to see different \nstates make selections on markets that fit their needs. And you \nknow, the reality is that there are two choices, and that makes the \nsituation more complex. But the complexity has a downside to it, \nwhich is we want to make sure that we can get as many benefits \nfrom the efficient dispatch, from efficient use of the existing grid, \nand what we did at our meeting in July, earlier this month, was \nask the regions to come and file the report you just mentioned, con-\nsider how you are going to work together, what sort of formal \nmechanism could you have in place to minimize those seams. And \nso, it’s more complex, but there is an opportunity to minimize that. \nAnd one of the things contemplated in that report is, you know, \nand we have seen this in other parts of the country, where the two \ndifferent grid operators have things like joint operating agreements \nthat sort of lay out, you know, when we get into these situations, \nhere is what we will do, here is how people get paid, here is how \nwe work around the different contractual rights that exist on the \ntransmission system. \nAll of those things are places where I see the opportunity for \nprogress out West, and you know, I am very bullish on these mar-\nkets on saving people money, on providing more reliable power, \nand we already know from looking around the rest of the country \nwhere we have markets that these save consumers something like \n$10 billion a year, if not more. \nSenator GALLEGO. Good. \nMr. ROSNER. Thank you for the question. \nSenator GALLEGO. Chairman Swett, as is clear from the breadth \nof issues discussed at this hearing, we are asking FERC to do a lot \nof things these days. All this work requires very sufficient, quali-\nfied staff at the agency."},{"page":79,"startToken":33583,"endToken":34158,"text":"75 \nWhat steps is FERC taking to ensure employee retention, and \nwill FERC need more staff if Congress passes energy legislation, \nincluding permitting reform, which we hope we do? \nMs. SWETT. Thank you for the question. \nAs my third time as a FERC employee, I take this very seriously. \nI care very much about the agency and its staff. I have spent a lot \nof time, personally, meeting with every single office and trying to \nlook as many employees in the face as I can. That said, I am \npleased to say that the administration authorized us to start hiring \nagain, and we have posted—I have the numbers here, so I don’t get \nthem wrong—we currently have 1,370 full-time employees. And \nsince OPM opened up hiring for us in January, we have hired 74 \nnew employees who are mostly very qualified subject matter ex-\nperts. And I am very pleased at this result. We still have rolling \njob listings posted throughout the year, and I am very encouraged \nthat we will continue to staff up. \nAnd of course, if Congress gives us more power or more roles, \nthen we will adjust accordingly. \nSenator GALLEGO. Thank you, I yield back. \nThe CHAIRMAN. Senator Cotton. \nSenator COTTON. Thank you. \nI also want to address artificial intelligence and data centers. I \nhear a lot of conversation from Arkansans about that, at various \nlevels. At maybe the highest level, you might say they are very con-\ncerned about the threat that China poses. You know, just in the \nlast week or so, China has released another open-weighted model, \nand they want to make sure that we maintain our advantage over \nChina. They recognize at another level, the great potential that ar-\ntificial intelligence has for scientific breakthroughs for health care \nand pharmaceutical breakthroughs, maybe to cure cancer or Alz-\nheimer’s and other terrible diseases. \nAt a personal level, I think a lot of them are very excited about \nit. Many of them are using it in their business, whether it’s a giant \nbusiness or whether it’s a small mom-and-pop business, or maybe \njust using it for their day-to-day needs, whether getting a rehab \nregimen for an aching knee, you know, comparing pickup trucks \nthey are going to buy, developing a summer reading plan for a kid \nto have them ready to go back to school. All very positive, construc-\ntive things. On the other hand, they are worried about what it \nmeans for the communities to have large data centers in or near \nthem, especially what it might mean for the strain on infrastruc-\nture, most notably on electricity, and what they are going to pay \nfor their power bills, whether the power is going to be there during \nterrible winter storms, summer heat waves. \nSo, Mr. LaCerte, let me start with you. If a data center brings \nand pays for its own generation—so you have got a data center \nthat the hyperscalers are bringing in, and they say they are going \nto build it and they pay for the generation, they pay for the grid \nupgrades—should ordinary families and businesses also pay for \nthose same facilities? I would assume not. \nMr. LACERTE. No, Senator, there is a longstanding tenet at \nFERC of beneficiary pays. So, the person who is reaping the benefit \nof the new line, the new generation, should be borne the cost of the \ninfrastructure upgrades. And we take that seriously."},{"page":80,"startToken":34158,"endToken":34731,"text":"76 \nSenator COTTON. And that means that the people who are build-\ning these centers and using them for all these important purposes, \nthey are willing to put down the money to build their generation. \nArkansas ratepayers and businesses are not going to be billed for \nthese costs either? \nMr. LACERTE. That is a core tenet of when the President brought \nthe Governors and PJM together to agree on what the rules of the \nroad are and the Ratepayer Protection Pledge, and I applaud the \nGovernors for coming together in a bipartisan manner, sir, with the \nPresident, and doing so, and that has been something that has \nbeen expanded. It has been something that has been agreed to by \nall the major hyperscalers, in that these costs in which they are \ngoing to incur, they are going to be assigned to. And it’s something \nthat we are going to hold them to. It’s something that the states \nneed to hold those hyperscalers accountable for on the retail level. \nAnd I think it’s an all-of-the-above approach as it relates to assign-\ning costs to the data centers themselves. \nSenator COTTON. Which those hyperscalers, right now, are per-\nfectly willing to do? They are willing to make those investments? \nMr. LACERTE. Absolutely. \nSenator COTTON. Ms. Swett, I see you nodding your head. You \nhave had conversations with them, I presume? \nMs. SWETT. Yes, sir. I have met with many hyperscalers who are, \nat a minimum, willing to pay all the costs associated with their \ninterconnection, and many of them are going beyond that and offer-\ning to subsidize the communities with additional infrastructure \nprograms or even bill subsidies. \nSenator COTTON. I think the CEO of one of them said that even \nif they spent a few hundred billion dollars more than was nec-\nessary, in retrospect, it was a worthwhile investment. \nMr. Rosner, I see you nodding your head. \nMr. ROSNER. I completely agree. We have had them come before \nour Commission and testify there, and what they say is, we would \nlike to go fast, and we want to pay for it. And so, my view is, let’s \nlet them. And to your point on investments in communities, I \nmean, we have got examples of them putting a battery in every \nhome for people affected by, you know, having the data center \nnearby. Things like that are great. Other things that they have \ndone to lower regular bills, you know, I am completely in favor of \nthat. \nSenator COTTON. And is FERC postured right now from a policy \nand regulatory standpoint to ensure there’s not that kind of double \nrecovery? Do you need any other specific safeguards or reforms, or \ndo you think you are postured well? \nMr. ROSNER. Well, Senator, you know, we have discussed the or-\nders to show cause that we gave to each RTO, and I think those \norders make very important progress on making sure that regular \nconsumers don’t pay for infrastructure associated with data cen-\nters. Of course, you know, if Congress wanted to add more speci-\nficity, you know, I would defer to you, and I am happy to provide. \nSenator COTTON. Well, I just think, based on what I hear from \nArkansans, you know, they don’t want to pay more for their power \nbills for these data centers, but they recognize that the data cen-\nters are a critical part of artificial intelligence, whether it’s going"},{"page":81,"startToken":34731,"endToken":35328,"text":"77 \nto help us beat China or cure cancer or develop a summer reading \nplan for a kid to disregard and not follow, but they know that they \nwant both of those things, and it’s just important for us, here in \nCongress and at FERC, to make sure that we can deliver both of \nthem. So, thank you. \nThe CHAIRMAN. Okay, that wraps up round one. Any members \nremaining beyond this point can ask an additional question. I will \nask one now, and then we will go to anybody else who wants to \nask one additional question before we wrap up. \nCommissioner See, I would like to turn to you. Last year, the Su-\npreme Court held in the Seven County case what many of us have \nknown and believed for a long time, which is that NEPA is a proce-\ndural statute. It’s a procedural statute that requires you to review \na project under consideration and not the cumulative effects of all \nother projects. Under your leadership and with your active involve-\nment, the Commission has taken steps to implement that ruling. \nCan you just sort of explain to the Committee what the Commis-\nsion has done so far on this point, and let us know whether, to \nwhat extent, what way, to what degree, some clarification from \nCongress on the proper scope of NEPA might help provide addi-\ntional certainty for projects that are before the jurisdiction of \nFERC? \nMs. SEE. Absolutely, Senator. I am really happy to talk about \nthat. I welcome the Seven County decision, and for the simple rea-\nson that ambiguity and NEPA and other environmental statutes \nand the litigation that comes from it is the biggest source of delay \nin getting needed infrastructure across the finish line. So, of \ncourse, we have important environmental responsibilities. We take \nthat seriously, but we are not doing our job for the American peo-\nple if those duties balloon beyond what the statute actually re-\nquires. \nSo, one of the things Seven County did is, it confirmed that \nNEPA requires us to look at the effects of the project in front of \nus and to not look at non-foreseeable effects upstream, down-\nstream, or wherever else they are. \nThat clarity is vital for us to do our work. So, we have been tak-\ning a close look to make sure that we are looking at the things that \nwe are required to under statute, but we are not adding additional \ncategories that aren’t required and that we were doing, perhaps, \nfor other reasons, and some of them were in abundance of caution \nbecause courts did not have that clarity. \nSo, what I would come back to, and the question of what else \nCongress can be doing as we are trying to make the most of that \ndecision in the clarity we have, any additional clarity we have in \nNEPA and other environmental statutes is critical for us to do our \njob for the American people and to do it in a really predictable and \nstreamlined fashion at the pace that we need. \nThe CHAIRMAN. That’s a great point. And NEPA has worked. One \nof the reasons we know it has helped is because a lot of other coun-\ntries have followed it. But from my ability to observe what other \ncountries have done with it, they have captured the benefits of \nNEPA without replicating what it has become here, which is the \nadditional delay, something that other countries have wisely avoid-\ned replicating. And what we have seen from that is that they are"},{"page":82,"startToken":35328,"endToken":35891,"text":"78 \nable to still capture and maintain the benefits of environmental re-\nview without having the years-long or many decades-long delays \nthat don’t materially advance any environmental interest. \nSenator Heinrich, any other questions? Senator King? \nOkay, well, I want to thank each of you for being here. This has \nbeen very helpful testimony, and we are very grateful to have your \nparticipation and your expertise, as this is a Commission with a \nvery interesting and increasingly important array of responsibil-\nities. And so, I appreciate your service. \nAny Senator who wants to submit questions for the record may \ndo so. The deadline for submitting those questions will be at 6:00 \np.m. tomorrow, that is Thursday, July 23. Senators also will have \nuntil 6:00 p.m. this coming Wednesday, July 29, to add statements \nfor the record with regard to today’s hearing. \nSenator KING. Mr. Chairman. \nThe CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir. \nSenator KING. I wanted to add one comment. \nThe CHAIRMAN. Yes. \nSenator KING. I just wanted to reiterate what I said at the begin-\nning, and that is to thank you for the work that you have been \ndoing. And anybody watching this hearing, I would defy them to \nsay which of you is a nominee of which party, and that’s the way \nit’s supposed to work. And this has been a very illuminating hear-\ning. The questions have been answered in a straightforward and \nhonest way. And I just really appreciate it. As I said at the begin-\nning, I think you are modeling how our government is supposed to \nwork. Thank you very much. \nThe CHAIRMAN. All right, just as we were about to gavel out, the \nprodigal son from North Dakota has returned, and the Chair recog-\nnizes Senator Hoeven. You thought you were off the hook, but not \njust yet, but don’t worry, he is pretty nice, just don’t call a bison \na buffalo, and don’t call it a bison—you have to call it a ‘‘bizon.’’ \nThose are the only two third rails with him. \nSenator Hoeven. \nSenator HOEVEN. Thanks, Mr. Chair. And you know, I have been \non this Committee for 16 years now, and I worked myself all the \nway up to this spot on the Committee. Can you believe that? \n[Laughter.] \nSenator HOEVEN. Thanks to each of you. One of the biggest chal-\nlenges that we have is with making sure that we have the ability \nto move baseload energy, you know, and dispatchable energy \naround the country, and we need a grid system, and of course, a \ngas transportation system that enables us to do that and really to \nreach all aspects of the country, even places like New England, the \nState of New York, other places where we find it incredibly difficult \nto build transmission and gas pipelines. As we work on stream-\nlining regulatory reform and so forth, and I know both our Chair-\nman and Ranking Member are hard at work on that, what are your \nrecommendations to make sure that we have not only a gas/oil \ntransportation system, but also a national grid that enables us to \nuse all forms of energy as efficiently and effectively as possible? \nAnd I would like to hear the best ideas from each one of you, and \nyou can’t go more than three minutes and 42 seconds or I will prob-"},{"page":83,"startToken":35891,"endToken":36458,"text":"79 \nably get in trouble with the Chair and the Ranking Member, and \nI wouldn’t want to do that. \nGo ahead, sir. \nMr. ROSNER. Okay, thank you, Senator. \nWell, I would say, you know, sitting at FERC, where we have a \nlot of control over the markets and the planning of infrastructure, \none thing that has become obvious to me is that it takes too long \nto build infrastructure in this country. And no matter what fuel \nsource anyone might prefer, electrons don’t wear capes, we just \nneed a whole lot of them. We need a lot of molecules. We just need \na lot of energy in this country right now. And so, anything Con-\ngress can do to speed that up, we need it all, you know. \nAnd we spend a lot of time thinking about our interconnection \nprocesses, and I will just give you an example—we accelerated 50 \nprojects in the Mid-Atlantic part of the country. One of them was \na natural gas combined-cycle power plant, over a thousand \nmegawatts. It was going to be built in Ohio. They got a grid up-\ngrade cost of over a billion dollars, almost as expensive as the plant \nitself, and the reason was, we hadn’t invested enough in the grid. \nYou also mentioned New England. They have very high prices \nthere. I think it’s something like 38 cents delivered. Whatever Con-\ngress can do to get energy infrastructure built more rapidly and \nmake sure that, you know, it’s not uncertain once the permit deci-\nsion has been made, that all sounds directionally consistent with \nwhere we need to go. \nSenator HOEVEN. Do you think it’s just more infrastructure, not \nsomehow getting the regional operators and others to make sure \nthat they figure out we have got to have dispatchable, and quit \npicking winners and losers in a way that impedes our ability to use \nthe grid effectively? \nMr. ROSNER. I think, you know, I am committed to doing the \nwork with the grid operators to make sure the markets are sending \nsignals to invest in the right kind of technology. \nSenator HOEVEN. There you go. \nMr. ROSNER. In the right places. \nSenator HOEVEN. Good. Well, if that was our Chairman that got \nyou to commit to that, then he did a great job. \nMs. SEE. I will say a couple of things on this. You know, first is \nwe have a responsibility under the Federal Power Act to be re-\nsource-neutral, but not liability-neutral. And we have been really \nlooking at our statutory authorities to make sure that we are recog-\nnizing the values that come from diverse sources for a balanced \nportfolio, but also recognizing different reliability attributes. So, I \nthink further clarity from Congress about how that principle—that \nresource neutrality—is not necessarily the same thing as reliability \nneutrality. I think that clarity would be helpful. \nSenator HOEVEN. I like that comment. That’s right-on. \nMs. SEE. And I guess the second thing I would say is, \npiggybacking on a conversation that we had with the Chairman \nearlier, and it goes to this idea that clarity is so important when \nit comes to whose roles are whose within the Federal Government \nas we are going about our duties to move infrastructure faster. We \nare hard at work trying to streamline infrastructure in a legally \ndurable way. We are moving forward proposals for expanding our"},{"page":84,"startToken":36458,"endToken":36990,"text":"80 \nblanket programs to make sure we are streamlining. But we need \nadditional clarity from Congress when it comes to our responsi-\nbility versus other federal agencies when it comes to what is and \nisn’t required in NEPA and other environmental statutes. \nSo, we are doing the best that we can to make sure we are mov-\ning forward, but I certainly welcome any more clarity that Con-\ngress would give. \nSenator HOEVEN. Thank you. \nMs. SWETT. Thank you, Senator. I am going to be a bit aggres-\nsive here. My two things are, first, ending states’ abilities to effec-\ntively veto federal projects that cross state lines through Clean \nWater Act denials cuts both ways. It can hold up gas pipeline infra-\nstructure. It can also hold up interstate transmission lines. So, \nCongress having more clarity there, that states cannot effectively \nveto through denials, would get more infrastructure built. \nThe second one is limiting the ability of judicial review to hold \nup a project. Some of my colleagues and I worked on big appeals \nof pipelines that went decades long. And if there were a statutory \nlimit on how long judicial review can go, that would be extremely \neffective in making efficient and less-expensive infrastructure \nprojects. \nSenator HOEVEN. That was aggressive. I like the second one. The \nfirst one—I was a Governor for ten years, so a little trepidation \nthere. \nThank you for coming to see me this week. I appreciate it—or \nlast week, I guess. Go ahead. \nMs. CHANG. Thank you, Senator. \nI will just throw a whole bunch of acronyms—T, DR, ATT—so I \nthink, you know, I concur with what many of my colleagues have \nmentioned. I think we need a backbone transmission that is allow-\ning the interconnection of large loads and all generation, genera-\ntion of all types. I think this is a time when prices are high, we \nenable more demand-side resources to participate in the markets, \nin general. That requires states to really step up, and making sure \nthat the levers that they can pull will bring more demand-side re-\nsponses to the grid. \nAnd then, ATT, we had mentioned here already. The advanced \ntransmission technologies—a no-brainer. We need to use them \nwhenever they are appropriate and economically viable, and the \nbest solutions for all consumers should be on the table. Thank you. \nMr. LACERTE. Senator, I will speak really quickly. You know, you \nasked for what Congress can do to help on these things. Obviously, \nwe have our homework assignments which keep us very busy at \nFERC, but Congress can also help us to act as well. And the big-\ngest thing that they can do is reduce these roadblocks and hurdles \nto getting things built again. So, I will run through it really quick-\nly. \nSection 401 of the Clean Water Act, the biggest thing we can do \nis clarify that the scope is limited to only the pollutants stemming \nfrom the discharge, not the activity as a whole. That’s the biggest \nthing we can help with. \nSection 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we can \ncodify that NHPA is intended to be a process-related statute direct-"},{"page":85,"startToken":36990,"endToken":37237,"text":"81 \ning agencies to consider the effects on historic properties. We need \nto get back to that, like we have on NEPA. \nSections 4(e) and 18 of the FPA, for hydro matters, we need to \nclarify that the hydro facility should only have to answer for their \ndirect effects on the federal reservation under 4(e) or fisheries \nunder 18. \nAnd then Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, we need to \nreform how critical habitat is designated. We need to incorporate \nthe Maine Lobstermen’s holding—the statute that clarifies the best \nscientific information and commercially available data, and not the \nworst-case scenario, to give the benefit of the doubt to the species \nwhen issuing a biological opinion. \nSenator HOEVEN. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, thank \nyou for your patience. If they were that good all day, you had a \ngood hearing. Thank you very much. \nThe CHAIRMAN. Well, I mean, Maine lobstermen made an ap-\npearance. That made it worth it in and of itself, lobster being some-\nthing I know is very important to the economy of landlocked North \nDakota. \nSenator HOEVEN. Yes. We like to eat them. \n[Laughter.] \nThe CHAIRMAN. Indeed. \nAll right, Angus. \nSenator KING. I thought it was a brilliant addition. \nThe CHAIRMAN. Totally. \nMr. LACERTE. I really appreciate that, Senator. \nThe CHAIRMAN. You good to go, Angus? \nOkay, with that, we stand adjourned. Thanks again. \nKeep up the great work. \n[Whereupon, at 11:42 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]"},{"page":86,"startToken":37237,"endToken":37241,"text":"(82) \nAPPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED"},{"page":87,"startToken":37241,"endToken":37620,"text":"83\nU.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources\nJuly 22, 2026, Hearing: Oversight Hearing on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission\nQuestions for the Record Submitted to The Honorable Laura V. Swett\nQuestions from Ranking Member Martin Heinrich\nQuestion 1: DOE recently issued its draft National Transmission Needs Study, which found\nthat the US desperately needs more high voltage transmission lines to be built.\nOver the past nine years, high-voltage transmission lines of 500 kV or more only made up\n4% of the transmission building nationally.\nHow important is the buildout, and improvement, of high voltage, interregional\ntransmission in meeting our nation's energy needs?\nAnswer: The buildout of high-voltage interregional transmission is essential to maintaining the\nongoing safe and reliable operation of the interstate transmission grid. As the National\nTransmission Needs Study noted, interregional and cross-interconnection links have the highest\npotential value for congestion relief and resource adequacy. I recognize the importance of a\nrobust transmission system to ensure reliable and affordable service to customers. I am\nencouraged by recent approval of 500 kV and above projects, such as in MISO, SPP, and\nCAISO, that can improve interregional transfer capability and will continue to encourage such\ndevelopment where cost effective. Moreover, Order No. 1920 requires transmission providers to\nevaluate potential projects with a common set of benefits, one of which specifically examines the\nbenefit of increasing import capability from other regions.\nQuestion 2: FERC has made improvements to generator interconnection processes through\nits Order No. 2023. But even with fixes to study times, generators can face expensive\nnetwork upgrades, leading to delaying generation deployment on the grid.\nWhat steps can FERC take to address the long generation interconnection delays caused by\nhigh network upgrades?\nAnswer: Since issuance of Order No. 2023, the Commission has taken a number of steps to\nfurther address generation interconnection delays. For example, the Commission has acted on\nnumerous proposals from transmission providers seeking to improve their interconnection queue\nprocesses and queue times. One example is SPP's consolidated planning process, which is a\nnovel approach that considers transmission planning and generator interconnection in one\nprocess. In addition, my colleagues and I are also further considering how the use of advanced\ntransmission technologies could in some instances reduce the time and cost of generator\ninterconnection."},{"page":88,"startToken":37620,"endToken":38077,"text":"84\nU.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources\nJuly 22, 2026, Hearing: Oversight Hearing on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission\nQuestions for the Record Submitted to The Honorable Laura V. Swett\nQuestions from Senator Jim Justice\nQuestion 1: What steps is FERC taking to ensure that its consideration of pending and\nfuture hydroelectric license surrenders accounts for the Administration's priorities\nconcerning reliable energy production, water security, and preservation of critical\ninfrastructure? Specifically, will you commit to protecting local water supplies and\nensuring no dam is removed without full mitigation for agriculture?\nAnswer: I recognize the importance of the issues you raise. I commit to ensuring that in any\nhydroelectric license surrender proceeding, the Commission will make its decisions based on a\ncareful review of the record and that all issues raised, including water supply and agricultural\nissues, are given thorough, thoughtful consideration.\nQuestions from Senator Catherine Cortez Masto\nQuestion 1: Multiple reports have warned of a \"brain drain\" at FERC. Can you please\nbuild on your answer during the hearing and provide the current staffing totals at your\nAgency? Are there figures on total staff departures that have occurred since the start of the\nsecond Trump Administration? Can you also please summarize FERC efforts to recruit\nand retain staff?\nAnswer: As of Friday, July 24, 2026, the Commission has 1,370 staff on board. Since\nJanuary 20, 2025, 306 employees have departed from the Commission. Earlier this year, the\nOffice of Personnel Management (OPM) approved a hiring plan for the Commission to increase\nits staffing level to 1,498 full-time equivalents. Since receiving that approval from OPM, the\nCommission has recruited 76 new staff and has selected 40 existing staff to fill positions vacated\nin Calendar Years 2025 and 2026.\nIn executing this hiring plan, the Commission is recruiting from all available sources, prioritizing\nthe greatest mission need in organizations with the most significant workload. The Commission\nhas also developed a robust curriculum comprised of technical training and other professional\ndevelopment opportunities to accelerate new employees' acclimation to the Commission's\nQuestion 2: Are there ways that Congress and FERC can work together to bolster\nworkforce programs and ensure we have the expertise necessary to adhere to all of FERC's\nAnswer: I appreciate the need to have a workforce that has the expertise to work on the\nimportant energy issues we must address for the American people. Although at this time I do not\nhave in mind ways that Congress and the Commission can work together on these staffing issues,\nI will identify such issues as they arise.\nQuestion 3: Under its five categories of reform for the June 2026 show cause orders, FERC\nincludes \"preventing cost sifting and requiring transparency into transmission costs.\" How\n2"},{"page":89,"startToken":38077,"endToken":38575,"text":"85\nU.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources\nJuly 22, 2026, Hearing: Oversight Hearing on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission\nQuestions for the Record Submitted to The Honorable Laura V. Swett\nwill FERC ensure that large loads, including data centers, bear their fair share of grid\nmodernization costs and do not shift those costs onto residential ratepayers, particularly\ngiven states' central role in regulating cost-shifting?\nAnswer: My colleagues and I take seriously concerns about protecting residential ratepayers\nfrom the costs of integrating large loads, including data centers, and these concerns factored\nheavily in the Commission's historic show cause orders. The orders the Commission issued in\nJune 2026 establish rigorous consumer safeguards. For example, the orders focus on preventing\ncost shifting as large loads integrate onto the grid, such that the costs of network upgrades are\nappropriately credited and not borne by other wholesale customers. In addition, because the\nstates will play a critical role in this process, these orders call for unprecedented transparency so\nthat cost information is available for, and can be used by, state regulators to protect retail\nQuestions from Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith\nQuestion 1: I want to commend the Commission for continuing to prioritize reliability\nacross the grid. There is a fine balance between interconnectivity and ensuring connectivity\ndoes not impede affordability and reliability.\n• Given the jurisdictional balance between federal and state regulators, how does\nFERC ensure it respects retail electric service agreements with data centers\nalongside generation and transmission siting authority when issuing show-cause\norders to grid operators?\nAnswer: The show cause orders the Commission issued in June 2026 to address the integration\nof large loads respect the authority of states to select, site, and permit generating resources and\ntransmission facilities and to set the rates, terms, and conditions of retail sales of electricity.\nMoreover, the show cause orders strive to increase transparency so that state public utility\ncommissions and other state regulators have the information they need to protect retail\nratepayers. I expect that the Commission's ongoing work on these show cause orders will\ncontinue to respect the states' role on these issues.\nQuestions from Senator Lisa Murkowski\nQuestion 1: The Homer Electric Association is a small rural electric cooperative in Alaska\nthat serves about 25,000 customers on the Kenai Peninsula. Several years ago, I was\nappalled to learn that during a hydropower relicensing proceeding, the U.S. Forest Service\ntried to make Homer build and maintain an unconstructed part of the Iditarod Trail near\nGrant Lake, including accessing parking lots and cleaning bathrooms in perpetuity, as part\nof the agency's so-called mandatory conditions under section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act\n(FPA). These requirements had nothing to do with the hydropower project or its impact on\nForest Service lands. Instead, Forest Service employees admitted to my staff that they long\nsought the trail's construction and 'had always wanted parking and bathroom facilities' in\nthe area and that the hydropower licensing process was their chance. They didn't care that"},{"page":90,"startToken":38575,"endToken":39031,"text":"86\nU.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources\nJuly 22, 2026, Hearing: Oversight Hearing on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission\nQuestions for the Record Submitted to The Honorable Laura V. Swett\nthe co-op, and its customers, would be left footing the bill. The Homer Electric licensing\nproceeding has become a prominent example of how mandatory conditions under Sections\n4(e) and 18 of the FPA can dramatically increase project costs. And although it is a FERC\nlicense, the Commission has no discretion to reject a resource agency's conditions, no\nmatter how unreasonable, unnecessary, or unrelated to the project. Too often, agencies\nhave wielded mandatory conditions tied to hydropower licenses as a way to secure \"wish-\nlist\" items by using license applicants as ATMs.\n• Does the Commission believe the current statutory framework under the FPA\nappropriately balances resource agency authority with FERC's responsibility to\nlicense hydropower projects in the public interest?\nAnswer: The Federal Power Act requires the Commission to consider multiple factors when\nissuing a hydroelectric license, including impacts on power generation, commerce, energy\nconservation, fish and wildlife protection and other environmental considerations, recreation,\nirrigation, flood control, and water supply. Congress also has given a number of agencies\nmandatory conditioning authority under FPA sections 4(e) and 18, section 401 of the Clean\nWater Act, and the Endangered Species Act, such that those agencies can impose conditions\npursuant to their statutory mandates. However, those agencies are not required to balance the\nmany interests that the Commission must consider, which may result in licenses with conditions\nnot necessary to satisty the public interest.\n• Do you agree that the FPA prevents the Commission from rejecting a mandatory\ncondition or prescription that is issued by a relevant resource agency? Can FERC\ndetermine if a resource agency's mandatory condition or prescription is in the\npublic interest?\nAnswer: I agree, and the same is true for mandatory conditions issued pursuant to section 401 of\nthe Clean Water Act and under the Endangered Species Act. The Commission may express its\nopinion in the licensing order as to whether mandatory conditions are consistent with the public\n• Do you share my concern that egregious and unrelated mandatory conditions\nunnecessarily increase costs while discouraging hydropower development and that\nthis was not the intent of Title I of the FPA?\nAnswer: Yes.\n• Are there statutory or procedural changes that Congress should consider to tie\nmandatory conditions/prescription to the actual project and improve coordination\namong agencies while preserving environmental protections?\nAnswer: I believe there are statutory changes that could better tie mandatory conditions to actual\nproject impacts and improve coordination among agencies. Such changes could include giving\nthe Commission the ability, as is the case with fish and wildlife conditions proffered under FPA\n4"},{"page":91,"startToken":39031,"endToken":39533,"text":"87\nU.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources\nJuly 22, 2026, Hearing: Oversight Hearing on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission\nQuestions for the Record Submitted to The Honorable Laura V. Swett\nsection 10(j), to determine whether mandatory conditions are consistent with Part I of the FPA or\nother law and, after consultation with the agencies that provided the conditions, to determine\nwhether other conditions might best satisfy the public interest.\nQuestion 2: Hydropower is an essential component of our nation's energy portfolio, yet\ndevelopers continue to cite permitting and regulatory delays as barriers to investment and\ndevelopment. Last November, the Commission released a Notice of Inquiry for a proposed\nblanket authorization treatment of post-licensing activities like maintenance, repairs, and\nupgrades. I'm also seeking similar reforms in the FLOWS Act, legislation I'm advancing\nwith Senator King. The goal is to provide meaningful regulatory certainty without\ncompromising environmental or reliability protections.\n• What is the current status of FERC's consideration of a blanket authorization for\nhydropower projects? Will the Commission move to a rulemaking proceeding soon?\nAnswer: The Commission is considering the comments that were filed in response to the Notice\nof Inquiry and will take further action as appropriate based on the record\nQuestion 3: FERC's recent order on large loads is focused on making sure we can connect\nnew demand -particularly Al data centers- without compromising reliability or shifting\ncosts onto existing customers. Alaska isn't part of an RTO or ISO, but we're actively\nlooking at opportunities to attract data centers because of our abundant energy resources,\ncool climate, and strategic location.\n• As the Commission implements this policy, what lessons should states like Alaska\ntake away? How can we welcome these large new loads while ensuring existing\nresidential customers don't end up subsidizing the infrastructure needed to serve\nthem?\nAnswer: I take seriously the Commission's critical role in ensuring that our country can integrate\nlarge loads onto the transmission system, not only to win the Al race through speed to power for\ndata centers, but also to reshore the heavy industrial and other manufacturing processes that are\ncrucial to ensuring our global competitiveness. Supporting these goals, however, involves\nbalancing the integration of large loads with the need for reliable and affordable power for\nratepayers. The Commission's landmark show cause orders on large load integration reflect this\ndrive and careful balance in the RTO regions. In addition, these orders' call for unprecedented\ntransparency as to transmission cost information serve as an example of how agreements\nbetween transmission providers and transmission customers in Alaska and other states can assist\nlarge loads in receiving transmission service while also enhancing the ability of state public\nutility commissions to protect retail ratepayers. The Commission continues to review\nagreements filed by transmission providers operating in the non-RTO regions of the country. The\nCommission has accepted those agreements that reflect just and reasonable rates for transmission\nservice while rejecting those that do not fairly allocate transmission costs or would intrude on\nstate jurisdiction over retail ratemaking.\n5"},{"page":92,"startToken":39533,"endToken":39726,"text":"88\nU.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources\nJuly 22, 2026, Hearing: Oversight Hearing on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission\nQuestions for the Record Submitted to The Honorable Laura V. Swett\nQuestions from Senator Alex Padilla\nQuestion 1: High-voltage direct current lines are widely recognized as a way to move bulk\npower over long distances with lower losses and with more control than traditional AC\nlines, but we still see relatively few HVDC projects getting built where they could help\nmost. What do you see as the main reasons cost-effective HVDC projects don't emerge\nmore often from the planning and approval process, and which of those reasons do you\nbelieve FERC has authority to fix right now, and which would require additional\nAnswer: I recognize the importance of a robust transmission system to ensure reliable and\naffordable service to customers, and I agree that HVDC projects can contribute to that goal in\nappropriate circumstances. It is difficult to assess as a general matter why more HVDC projects\ndo not emerge from transmission planning processes because the characteristics of each\nindividual proposed project are important to its consideration in those processes.\n6"},{"page":93,"startToken":39726,"endToken":40168,"text":"89\nU.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources\nJuly 22, 2026 Hearing: Oversight Hearing on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission\nQuestions for the Record Submitted to The Honorable David Rosner\nQuestions from Ranking Member Martin Heinrich\nQuestion 1: DOE issued its draft National Transmission Needs Study, which found that the\nUS desperately needs more high voltage transmission lines to be built. Over the past nine\nyears, high-voltage transmission lines of 500 kV or more only made up 4% of the\ntransmission building nationally. How important is the buildout, and improvement, of high\nvoltage, interregional transmission in meeting our nation's energy needs?\nAnswer: Accelerating smart investments in needed regional and interregional\ntransmission infrastructure is a top priority for me at FERC.\nNERC is our country's electric reliability watchdog. Their analysis indicates that our\ngrid may come up short when we depend on it most-during heat waves and winter\nstorms-because we can't transmit enough power from where we produce it to where we\nuse it. NERC determined that \"35 GW of transfer capability is recommended ocross the\nUnited States as a vehicle to strengthen energy adequacy under extreme conditionsạẠại\nFurther, there is strong evidence that well-planned, high-capacity transmission can save\nconsumers billions of dollars per year on their utility bills? Finally, as you point out,\nDOE's draft National Transmission Needs Study finds that \"[i]nterregional and cross-\ninterconnection linkages have the highest potential value to relieve transmission\ncongestion and provide resource adequacy benefits,\" and that \"significant transmission\ninvestment is needed to cost-effectively meet future demand through 2050ại\nSince 2011, Order No. 1000's interregional consultation requirements have not resulted\nin any interregional transmission projects. Yet, time and time again over those 15 years,\nwe have observed that interregional transmission has made meaningful contributions to\ngrid reliability during periods of extreme stress.4\n1N. Am. Elec. Reliability Corp. (NERC), Interregional Transfer Capability Study, at xili (Nov.\n2024). https://www.nerc.com/globalassets/initiatives/itcs/itcs_final_report.pdf.\n3 Grid Strategies, LLC, Large-scale Transmission Deployment Saves Consumers Money (June 2025),\nhttps://cleanenergygrid.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/GS_Transmission-Deployment-Saves-Consumers-\nMoney YfD.S. Dep' t of Energy, Draf National Transmision Needs Study, at y, vii (uly 2026).\nittps://www.energy.gov/documents/national-transmission-needs-study-draft-july-2026\n* See, e.g., FERC, NERC, & Regional Entity Staff, January 2025 Arctic Events: A System Performance\nReview, at 13-14 (Apr. 2025), https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/news/ferc-nerc-issue-report-system-performance-\nduring-january-2025-arctic-weather; FERC, NERC, & Regional Entity Staff, Winter Storm Elliott Report: Inquiry\ninto Bulk-Power System Operations During December 2022, at 123-25 (Oct. 2023),\nhttps://www.ferc.gov/media/winter-storm-elliott-report-inquiry-bulk-power-system-operations-during-december-\n2022; FERC, NERC, & Regional Entity Staff, The February 2021 Cold Weather Outages in Texas and the South"},{"page":94,"startToken":40168,"endToken":40611,"text":"90\nI stand ready to take swift action on any future filings from industry, which I encourage.\nand I also look forward to working with my fellow Commissioners to move this critical\nwork forward. Finally, I believe that accelerating smart investments in needed regional\nand interregional transmission infrastructure should be a key component of all-of-the-\nabove permitting reform legislation, and I stand ready to provide technical assistance to\nCongress with any proposed legislation in this area.\nQuestion 2: FERC has made improvements to generator interconnection processes through\nits Order No. 2023. But even with fixes to study times, generators can face expensive\nnetwork upgrades, leading to delaying generation deployment on the grid. What steps can\nFERC take to address the long generation interconnection delays caused by high network\nAnswer: While implementing the Commission's landmark Order No. 2023 this past year\nhas been a major step forward in modernizing our nation's generator interconnection\nqueues, there remains significant opportunity and an urgent need for further progress.\nFor example, I see significant potential to accelerate the pace of interconnection studies\nby adopting advanced automation tools-something which regions can do immediately\nand without the need for any regulatory changes. MISO has already used these tools to\nreduce one of its interconnection study's time from over 600 days to fewer than 10 days.\"\nWhile streamlining interconnection processes is important, ultimately, many of the delays\nthat generators face when connecting to the grid stem from inadequate transmission\ncapacity. There is little debate that the United States needs major investment in\ntransmission infrastructure, as detailed in my response above and confirmed by both\nNERC and DOE across Presidential Administrations. To that end, Thighlight two areas\nwhere better planning stands to make progress towards meeting these needs.\nFirst, the Commission recently approved the SPP region's Consolidated Planning Process\n(CPP).? CPP combines planning for demand growth and generator interconnection into a\nsingle process to plan for both needs holistically. Studying the grid this way can reduce\ninterconnection costs, avoid duplicative transmission, and accelerate generator\ninterconnection timelines. Finally, CPP also solves one of the most vexing parts of the\nlegacy generator interconnection process: uncertainty as to the cost of connecting a new\nCentral United States, at 96-98 (Nov. 2021), https://www.ferc.gov/media/february-2021-cold-weather-outages-\ntexas-and-south-central-united-states-ferc-nerc-and.\n& David Rosner, Comm'r, FERC, Commissioner Rosner's Letters to ISOs/RTOs Regarding Interconnection\nAutomation (Mar. 2025), https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/news/commissioner-rosners-letters-isosrtos-regarding-\ninterconnection-automation.\n* Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator (MISO), MISO Interconnection Process Working Grp., SUGAR\nhttps://cdn.misoenergy.org/20250304%20IPWG%20Item%2005%20SUGAR%20Implementation682016.pdf.\n1 See Sw. Power Pool, Inc., 194 FERC 1| 61,192 (2026), (Rosner, Comm'r, concurring),\nhttps://www.ferc.gov/news-events/news/commissioner-rosners-concurrence-southwest-power-pool-inc."},{"page":95,"startToken":40611,"endToken":40998,"text":"91\npower plant to the grid. CPP instead provides generators with a one-time, per-MW entry\nfee to connect to the grid that is known upfront.\nSecond, this year, FERC will begin reviewing electric transmission providers' proposals\nto implement the Commission's bipartisan Order No. 1920.® This critical rule adopts\nmodernized reforms for transmission providers to conduct long-term transmission\nplanning and, for the first time ever, incorporates input from our state partners into the\nDNA of the program, so that America can plan the backbone grid infrastructure needed to\nmeet our growing energy demand and maximize benefits to consumers. Getting regional\ntransmission planning right across the country will set up America to power the coming\ndecades of economic growth, while also ensuring that consumers are protected from\npaying for transmission that isn't needed, that is inefficient, or that doesn't provide\nFinally, I share my colleagues' interest in Grid Enhancing Technologies (GETs) as a\nmeans to get more efficiency out of the grid we have today and enable faster generator\ninterconnection.\nQuestions from Senator Cindy Hvde-Smith\nQuestion 1: I want to commend the Commission for continuing to prioritize reliability\nacross the grid. There is a fine balance between interconnectivity and ensuring connectivity\ndoes not impede affordability and reliability. Given the jurisdictional balance between\nfederal and state regulators, how does FERC ensure it respects retail electric service\nagreements with data centers alongside generation and transmission siting authority when\nAnswer: Because these matters are currently pending before the Commission, I cannot\nspeak to specific outcomes. However, as a general matter, the Commission has a long\nhistory of relying on and coordinating with states and regions to optimize outcomes and\nfulfill our statutory duties under the Federal Power Act (FPA). I expect this collaboration\nto continue for large loads. I am committed to continuing the work with my state and\nfederal colleagues, and as I noted in my testimony, I am encouraged by the fact that more\nthan 30 states have adopted special retail rate structures for large loads-an important\ncomplement to Commission action and a reminder of the cooperative federalism needed\nto protect consumers, especially residential customers\nQuestions from Senator Catherine Cortez Masto\n* See Building for the Future Through Elec. Reg'I Transmission Planning and Cost Allocotion, Order No.\n1920-A, 189 •| FERC 61,126 (2024), https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/news/ferc-strengthens-order-no-1920-\nexpanded-state-provisions"},{"page":96,"startToken":40998,"endToken":41497,"text":"92\nQuestion 1: Are there ways that Congress and FERC can work together to bolster\nworkforce programs and ensure we have the expertise necessary to adhere to all of FERC's\nAnswer: Yes. Ensuring that FERC has a strong, expert workforce is essential to\ndelivering on our mission to assist consumers in obtaining reliable, safe, secure, and\neconomically efficient energy services at a reasonable cost through appropriate regulatory\nand market means. While the Chairman, as the administrative head of the agency,\noversees staffing for the Commission, I fully support efforts to strengthen the\nprofessional expertise across all of FERC's offices as our energy systems grow more\ncomplex and demands increase. Congress and the Commission share an interest in\nmaintaining this capacity, and I welcome continued collaboration to bolster workforce\ndevelopment and address emerging expertise needs as they arise.\nQuestion 2: Under its five categories of reform for the June 2026 show cause orders, FERC\nincludes \"preventing cost shifting and requiring transparency into transmission costs.\"\nHow will FERC ensure that large loads, including data centers, bear their fair share of grid\nmodernization costs and do not shift those costs onto residential ratepayers, particularly\ngiven states' central role in regulating cost-shifting?\nAnswer: While I cannot comment on the specitics of these proceedings as they are\ncurrently pending, as a general matter, the Commission is laser focused on protecting\nconsumers from bearing the costs imposed by large loads like data centers. As I\nexplained in my concurrence to the show cause orders, one way to prevent cost shifting is\nthrough mandatory contracts-referred to as \"Cost Recovery Agreements\"-which are\ndesigned to ensure that large loads pay their fair share of the costs incurred to serve them,\nregardless of whether the large load comes online as planned. Furthermore, we are\nworking hard to ensure that there is sufficient transparency, so that our state regulator\ncolleagues have the information that they need to assign costs to the right classes of\nQuestions from Senator Lisa Murkowski\nQuestion 1: The Homer Electric Association is a small rural electric cooperative in Alaska\nthat serves about 25,000 customers on the Kenai Peninsula. Several years ago, 1 was\nappalled to learn that during a hydropower relicensing proceeding, the U.S. Forest Service\ntried to make Homer build and maintain an unconstructed part of the Iditarod Trail near\nGrant Lake, including accessing parking lots and cleaning bathrooms in perpetuity, as part\nof the agency's so-called mandatory conditions under section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act\n(FPA). These requirements had nothing to do with the hydropower project or its impact on\nForest Service lands. Instead, Forest Service employees admitted to my staff that they long\nsought the trail's construction and 'had always wanted parking and bathroom facilities' in\nthe area and that the hydropower licensing process was their chance. They didn't care that\nthe co-op, and its customers, would be left footing the bill. The Homer Electric licensing\nproceeding has become a prominent example of how mandatory conditions under Sections"},{"page":97,"startToken":41497,"endToken":41926,"text":"93\n4(e) and 18 of the FPA can dramatically increase project costs. And although it is a FERC\nlicense, the Commission has no discretion to reject a resource agency's conditions, no\nmatter how unreasonable, unnecessary, or unrelated to the project. Too often, agencies\nhave wielded mandatory conditions tied to hydropower licenses as a way to secure \"wish-\nlist\" items by using license applicants as ATMS.\n• Does the Commission believe the current statutory framework under the FPA\nappropriately balances resource agency authority with FERC's responsibility to\nlicense hydropower projects in the public interest?\nAnswer: When adjudicating a hydropower licensing proposal, I am required by the FPA\nto evaluate the full record and make a public-interest determination based on the facts and\nthe law. As you note, the FPA does not provide the Commission with discretion to reject\nor modify mandatory conditions submitted under sections 4(e) or 18, even when those\nconditions may contribute materially to overall project cost. I stand ready to provide\ntechnical assistance to Congress on any proposed legislation to streamline the\nhydropower licensing or relicensing process.\n• Do you agree that the FPA prevents the Commission from rejecting a mandatory\ncondition or prescription that is issued by a relevant resource agency? Can FERC\ndetermine if a resource agency's mandatory condition or prescription is in the\npublic interest?\nAnswer: Yes. Sections 4(e) and 18 of the FPA make certain agency conditions binding\non the Commission, and we do not have the authority to reject, revise, or tailor those\nconditions. Under current law, the Commission can assess, analyze, and comment on the\nimplications of a mandatory condition, including its effect on cost or operability, but once\na state or resource agency issues a mandatory condition or prescription, the Commission\nmust include it in the license regardless of our assessment.\n• Do you share my concern that egregious and unrelated mandatory conditions\nunnecessarily increase costs while discouraging hydropower development and that\nthis was not the intent of Title I of the FPA?\nAnswer: I share your commitment to ensuring that Americans have access to reliable and\naffordable hydropower. Affordability is top of mind across the country, as both\nhouseholds and businesses navigate energy costs. To that end, ensuring that needed\ngeneration and transmission infrastructure are properly incentivized-and that customers\nare not exposed to undue or disproportionate cost burdens-is a core priority for me.\nWhile I cannot speak to Congress's original intent, should Congress choose to revisit or\nclarify Title I of the FPA, I am confident that the Commission would continue to uphold\nits responsibilities consistent with any revisions."},{"page":98,"startToken":41926,"endToken":42384,"text":"94\n• Are there statutory or procedural changes that Congress should consider to tie\nmandatory conditions/prescription to the actual project and improve coordination\namong agencies while preserving environmental protections?\nAnswer: While I defer to Congress on the specifics, I strongly support all-of-the-above\npermitting reform legislation that enhances regulatory certainty and enables needed\ninfrastructure of all types-including hydropower-to be efficiently permitted and\nconstructed. Ensuring well-coordinated federal processes would help applicants plan\neffectively while preserving the protections afforded by the FPA\nQuestion 2: Hydropower is an essential component of our nation's energy portfolio, yet\ndevelopers continue to cite permitting and regulatory delays as barriers to investment and\ndevelopment. Last November, the Commission released a Notice of Inquiry for a proposed\nblanket authorization treatment of post-licensing activities like maintenance, repairs, and\nupgrades. I'm also seeking similar reforms in the FLOWS Act, legislation I'm advancing\nwith Senator King. The goal is to provide meaningful regulatory certainty without\ncompromising environmental or reliability protections.\n• What is the current status of FERC's consideration of a blanket authorization for\nhydropower projects? Will the Commission move to a rulemaking proceeding soon?\nAnswer: On November 25, 2025, FERC issued a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) to consider\nauthorizations for certain post-licensing activities at hydropower projects.? The\nhydropower industry has evolved significantly over time, providing FERC with a\nsubstantial record upon which we can streamline permitting for work that has already\nbeen well-studied and is well-understood, while maintaining rigorous safety and\nenvironmental standards across the board. Accordingly, I am reviewing the record from\nthe NOI and working with my colleagues to consider further action to develop updated\nblanket permitting procedures for lower-impact hydropower projects at existing facilities.\nAs to the specific timing of a next step in this proceeding, I refer you to Chairman\nSwett' s response to this question.\nQuestion 3: FERC's recent order on large loads is focused on making sure we can connect\nnew demand -particularly AI data centers- without compromising reliability or shifting\ncosts onto existing customers. Alaska isn't part of an RTO or ISO, but we're actively\nlooking at opportunities to attract data centers because of our abundant energy resources,\ncool climate, and strategic location. As the Commission implements this policy, what\nlessons should states like Alaska take away? How can we welcome these large new loads\nwhile ensuring existing residential customers don't end up subsidizing the infrastructure\nneeded to serve them?\nAnswer: Although I cannot comment on the specifics of the proceedings as they are\ncurrently pending, as a general matter, the four pillars that underscore the Commission's\nrecent work on large loads are: (1) protecting consumers, (2) enhancing transparency, (3)\n* See Authorizations for Certain Post-Licensing Activities at Hydroelectric Projects, 193 FERC* 61,140\n(2025) (Notice of Inquiry). https://www.ferc.gov/media/h-1-r26-3-000."},{"page":99,"startToken":42384,"endToken":42855,"text":"95\nsafeguarding reliability, and (4) fostering innovationạồWith respect to the first, one way\nto protect consumers and to prevent cost shifting is through mandatory contracts designed\nto ensure that large loads pay their fair share of the costs incurred to serve them,\nregardless of whether the large load comes online as planned or at all. In addition, it is\nessential that federal and state regulators work together on this urgent challenge, and, to\nthat end, I again highlight that over 30 states have adopted special retail rate structures for\nlarge loads-an important complement to Commission action and a reminder of the\ncooperative federalism needed to protect regular consumers. I stand ready to provide\ntechnical assistance to you as well as to the State of Alaska on these issues and the\nlessons learned from FERC's work in this area.\nQuestions from Senator Alex Padilla\nQuestion 1: Electricity prices are top of mind for California ratepayers. Any upward\npressure on rates from the irresponsible and inefficient incorporation of large loads onto\nthe grid would be devastating. In your recent large-load orders, the Commission found that\nsome tariffs appear unjust and unreasonable because they do not require the evaluation of\ngrid-enhancing technologies as potential solutions to bring in large loads.\n• What should consumers realistically expect to change because of these orders?\nAnswer: Although I cannot comment on the specifics of the proceedings as they are\ncurrently pending, as a general matter, GETs are technologies that enable more efficient\nuse of the existing grid and reduce the need for new infrastructure. Put simply: GETs can\nreduce costs and increase reliability.\" In previous FERC rulemakings, such as Order No.\n2023, which streamlined interconnection queues, and Order No. 1920, which requires\ncomprehensive, 20-year, forward-looking regional transmission planning, the\nCommission required public utilities to consider GETS. The Orders to Show Cause go\nfurther, requiring public utilities to not only consider GETs, but to (1) use of models that\nare capable of evaluating the transmission system to accurately account for GETs, as well\nas to (2) provide a transparent report demonstrating why GETs are not feasible if the\nutility does not implement them. \"2 To this end, I recently called on industry to share\ninnovations in software capable of accomplishing these goals. \"\n1° See David Rosner, Comm'r, FERC, Commissioner Rosner's Remarks on the Large Load Show Cause\nOrders (June 2026), https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/news/commissioner-rosners-remarks-large-load-show-cause-\norders-e-7-e-12-june-18-2026.\n\" See Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 191 FERC + 61,192 (2025), (Rosner, Comm'r, concurring),\nhttps://www.ferc.gov/news-events/news/commissioner-rosners-concurrence-order-granting-extension-time-re-miso-\ninc-undera See, e.g. Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator, Corp., 195 FERC 9 61,214 (2026) (Rosner, Comm'r, concurring, at\nP4). i David Rosner, Comm'r, FERC, Open Letter to Technical Conference Paricipants: Gerves ant Incoasing\nMarket Planning Efficiency through Improved Software (Jul. 2025), https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/news/open-\nletter-technical-conference-participants-gets-and-increasing-market-planning."},{"page":100,"startToken":42855,"endToken":42992,"text":"96\n• How will requiring RTOs and utilities to study GETs translate into measurable\noutcomes like lower customer bills and more efficient connections to the grid?\nAnswer: The cheapest transmission line is the one that is already built. GETs improve\nthe efficiency of our existing transmission system, allowing us to get more out of the\ninfrastructure that we already have, and to defer or avoid construction of new\ninfrastructure that might otherwise be necessary. We have some early evidence of the\npotential savings from one type of GETs, where the Independent Market Monitor for the\nMISO region estimated that temperature-adjusted transmission line ratings could save\nMidwestern consumers half a billion dollars between 2023 and 2024. 14\nSee Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 191 FERC 161,192 (2025), (Rosner, Comm'r, concuring\ns://www.ferc.gov/news-events/news/commissioner-rosners-concurrence-order-granting-extension-time-re-mi\ninc-under."},{"page":101,"startToken":42992,"endToken":43429,"text":"97\nU.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources\nJuly 22, 2026 Hearing: Oversight Hearing on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission\nQuestions for the Record Submitted to The Honorable Lindsay See\nQuestions from Ranking Member Martin Heinrich\nQuestion 1: DOE issued its draft National Transmission Needs Study, which found that the\nUS desperately needs more high voltage transmission lines to be built.\nOver the past nine years, high-voltage transmission lines of 500 kV or more only made up\n4% of the transmission building nationally.\nHow important is the buildout, and improvement, of high voltage, interregional\ntransmission in meeting our nation's energy needs?\nAnswer: America's growing electricity demand presents a tremendous opportunity for our\ncountry, and part of meeting that demand requires investing in transmission where it improves\nreliability, strengthens resilience, reduces congestion, or otherwise delivers measurable benefits\nto customers. Encouraging responsible transmission buildout is bound up with the\nCommission's mandate under the FPA to ensure that jurisdictional transmission rates remain just\nand reasonable while supporting reliable electric service.\nAt the same time, more transmission is not an end in itself. The Commission has a responsibility\nto help ensure that the right infrastructure is built at the right time and at a reasonable cost, with\nplanning that reflects regional needs and cost allocation that remains consistent with cost-\ncausation principles. For example, the Commission has recently approved innovative\napproaches to increase interregional transfer capability while remaining consistent with those\nprinciples, such as MISO and SPP's Joint Targeted Interconnection Queue portfolio of\ninterregional transmission facilities to support interconnecting 28.6 GW of generation along their\nQuestion 2: FERC has made improvements to generator interconnection processes through\nits Order No. 2023. But even with fixes to study times, generators can face expensive\nnetwork upgrades, leading to delaying generation deployment on the grid.\nWhat steps can FERC take to address the long generation interconnection delays caused by\nhigh network upgrades?\nAnswer: Reliable electricity requires speed to power. Order No. 2023 made important\nimprovements to generator interconnection by reducing study delays and increasing\ntransparency. We are already seeing results from Order No. 2023's reforms, but with\nimplementation still in its early phases, the rule needs more time to continue to deliver on its full\nThat said, improving study timelines alone will not solve every challenge. High network\nupgrade costs can delay new generation, increase costs for consumers, and slow the\ninfrastructure needed to support growing electricity demand. The Commission is encouraging\ninnovative solutions to help address these concerns. For instance, the Commission recently\napproved a measure in SPP that brings transmission and generation planning together, with a\nPage 1 of 6"},{"page":102,"startToken":43429,"endToken":43863,"text":"98\nU.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources\nJuly 22, 2026 Hearing: Oversight Hearing on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission\nQuestions for the Record Submitted to The Honorable Lindsay See\ngoal of helping developers make better informed decisions about where it is faster and cheaper to\nbuild. Creating stronger incentives to deploy alternative transmission technologies where they\nmake engineering and economic sense can also increase system capability, accelerate\ninterconnections, and avoid unnecessary upgrade costs. I remain committed with my colleagues\nto approaching this issue from all angles, and welcome any additional authorities Congress may\nQuestions from Senator Jim Justice\nQuestion 1: States have direct responsibility for consumer protection, resource adequacy,\nand affordability. Should states have a more formal role in initiating or directing PJM\nfilings on matters within their jurisdiction, and how could that improve outcomes for\ncustomers - including those in West Virginia?\nAnswer: States play an indispensable role in maintaining reliable and affordable electric\nservicethey are governmental partners with unique statutory responsibilities and insight into\ntheir residents' needs, not simply another stakeholder interest. The Commission's recent\ntechnical conference on PJM governance and stakeholder processes put a spotlight on practical\nreforms that can strengthen state engagement, improve transparency, and support more timely\ndecision-making. I support the States having a greater voice and accountability within PJM so\nthat they can better shape outcomes that affect ratepayers across the PJM region, including in my\nhome State of West Virginia.\nQuestions from Senator Catherine Cortez Masto\nQuestion 1: Are there ways that Congress and FERC can work together to bolster\nworkforce programs and ensure we have the expertise necessary to adhere to all of FERC's\nresponsibilities?\nAnswer: Our staff bring extraordinary professionalism, technical expertise, and dedication to\nwork every day, and their efforts are what make it possible for FERC to carry out its statutory\nmission. As our nation's energy system becomes more complex, maintaining that expertise\nbecomes increasingly important. I am pleased that the Commission is actively hiring talented\nengineers, economists, attorneys, accountants, environmental specialists, cybersecurity experts,\nand other professionals. I appreciate Congress's continued support for ensuring the Commission\ncan recruit and retain the highly qualified workforce we need to continue issuing timely,\ntechnically sound, and legally durable decisions.\nQuestion 2: Under its five categories of reform for the June 2026 show cause orders, FERC\nincludes \"preventing cost sifting and requiring transparency into transmission costs.\" How\nwill FERC ensure that large loads, including data centers, bear their fair share of grid\nmodernization costs and do not shift those costs onto residential ratepayers, particularly\ngiven states' central role in regulating cost-shifting?\nPage 2 of 6"},{"page":103,"startToken":43863,"endToken":44344,"text":"99\nU.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources\nJuly 22, 2026 Hearing: Oversight Hearing on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission\nQuestions for the Record Submitted to The Honorable Lindsay See\nAnswer: Protecting consumers is a core component of the Commission's responsibility to ensure\njust and reasonable rates. A growing load and a growing grid are good for America, but that\ngrowth needs to come with clear cost responsibility so that new large loads pay their own way,\nconsistent with the Commission's longstanding cost-causation principles. States are also\nindispensable in this effort because of their central role in retail ratemaking. Given that context,\nmy priorities in this area are: (1) applying cost-causation principles rigorously when it comes to\nallocating costs within our jurisdiction; (2) increasing transparency so States have better\ninformation when they do the same for costs within their jurisdiction; and (3) highlighting (and,\nwhere appropriate, requiring) best practices to reduce speculative and stranded costs across all\nENTE\nQuestions from Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith\nQuestion 1: I want to commend the Commission for continuing to prioritize reliability\ndoes not impede affordability and reliability.\nGiven the jurisdictional balance between federal and state regulators, how does FERC\nensure it respects retail electric service agreements with data centers alongside generation\nand transmission siting authority when issuing show-cause orders to grid operators?\nAnswer: As a general matter, I respect the FPA's careful balance between federal and state\nauthority and strive to work as partners with the States in the critical area of large load\ninterconnection and the costs that flow from it.\nConnecting data centers to the grid involves both federal and state jurisdiction under the FPA-\nthe Commission regulates interstate transmission service and wholesale electricity markets.\nwhile States are responsible for retail electric service, resource planning, and generation and\ntransmission siting. Respecting that jurisdictional balance is important to delivering reliable and\naffordable electricity while accommodating growing demand in a legally durable manner. In the\nrecent show-cause orders addressing the challenges associated with large-load growth, for\nStates by focusing direct regulatory authority on wholesale rate issues and pushing for greater\ntransparency to assist the States in their retail cost-allocation roles.\nQuestions from Senator Lisa Murkowski\nQuestion 1: The Homer Electric Association is a small rural electric cooperative in Alaska\nthat serves about 25,000 customers on the Kenai Peninsula. Several years ago, 1 was\nappalled to learn that during a hydropower relicensing proceeding, the U.S. Forest Service\ntried to make Homer build and maintain an unconstructed part of the Iditarod Trail near\nGrant Lake, including accessing parking lots and cleaning bathrooms in perpetuity, as part\nof the agency's so-called mandatory conditions under section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act\n(FPA). These requirements had nothing to do with the hydropower project or its impact on\nForest Service lands. Instead, Forest Service employees admitted to my staff that they long\nPage 3 of 6"},{"page":104,"startToken":44344,"endToken":44781,"text":"100\nU.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources\nJuly 22, 2026 Hearing: Oversight Hearing on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission\nQuestions for the Record Submitted to The Honorable Lindsay See\nsought the trail's construction and 'had always wanted parking and bathroom facilities' in\nthe area and that the hydropower licensing process was their chance. They didn't care that\nthe co-op, and its customers, would be left footing the bill. The Homer Electric licensing\nproceeding has become a prominent example of how mandatory conditions under Sections\n4(e) and 18 of the FPA can dramatically increase project costs. And although it is a FERC\nlicense, the Commission has no discretion to reject a resource agency's conditions, no\nmatter how unreasonable, unnecessary, or unrelated to the project. Too often, agencies\nhave wielded mandatory conditions tied to hydropower licenses as a way to secure \"wish-\nlist\" items by using license applicants as ATMs.\n• Does the Commission believe the current statutory framework under the FPA\nappropriately balances resource agency authority with FERC's responsibility to\nlicense hydropower projects in the public interest?\nAnswer: I share your concerns about how mandatory conditions can be used in practice in\nspecific instances. The FPA requires the Commission to balance a broad range of\nconsiderations when licensing hydropower projects, including electric generation,\nenvironmental resources, recreation, irrigation, flood control, and water supply. The Act\nalso assigns certain federal resource agencies mandatory conditioning authorities under\nsections 4(e) and 18 as part of that licensing process. Ibelieve the Commission should\npursue improved coordination with federal resource agencies, within our statutory\nbounds, to reduce unnecessary delay and otherwise support timely hydropower consistent\nwith the public interest.\n• Do you agree that the FPA prevents the Commission from rejecting a mandatory\ncondition or prescription that is issued by a relevant resource agency? Can FERC\ndetermine if a resource agency's mandatory condition or prescription is in the\npublic interest?\nAnswer: Sections 4(e) and 18 of the Federal Power Act generally require the Commission\nto include mandatory conditions and prescriptions from the relevant resource agencies in\nhydropower licenses. While the Commission has ultimate responsibility whether to issue\nthe license, the Act gives the respective resource agencies responsibility for those\n• Do you share my concern that egregious and unrelated mandatory conditions\nunnecessarily increase costs while discouraging hydropower development and that\nthis was not the intent of Title I of the FPA?\nAnswer: Hydropower is an important source of reliable, flexible electricity, and\nunnecessary costs and delays can discourage investing in both existing facilities and new\nprojects. I agree that regulatory requirements should be appropriately related to the\nPage 4 of 6"},{"page":105,"startToken":44781,"endToken":45250,"text":"101\nU.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources\nJuly 22, 2026 Hearing: Oversight Hearing on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission\nQuestions for the Record Submitted to The Honorable Lindsay See\n• Are there statutory or procedural changes that Congress should consider to tie\nmandatory conditions/prescription to the actual project and improve coordination\namong agencies while preserving environmental protections?\nAnswer: As a commissioner, 1 generally avoid recommending specific legislative\nproposals-but stand ready to implement any Congress enacts to bring greater parity\nbetween license conditions and the relevant interests at stake. From an administrative\nperspective, however, I believe that continuing to improve interagency coordination,\nidentifying issues earlier, and pursuing more efficient licensing procedures can better\nsupport timely hydropower development while preserving the balance of interests the\nQuestion 2: Hydropower is an essential component of our nation's energy portfolio, yet\ndevelopers continue to cite permitting and regulatory delays as barriers to investment and\ndevelopment. Last November, the Commission released a Notice of Inquiry for a proposed\nblanket authorization treatment of post-licensing activities like maintenance, repairs, and\nupgrades. I'm also seeking similar reforms in the FLOWS Act, legislation I'm advancing\nwith Senator King. The goal is to provide meaningful regalatory certainty without\ncompromising environmental or reliability protections.\nWhat is the current status of FERC's consideration of a blanket authorization for\nhydropower projects? Will the Commission move to a rulemaking proceeding soon?\nAnswer: Hydropower brings critical reliability features to the grid; in some regions it's\nconsumers' primary source of electricity. Efficient and legally durable licensing is critical to\nbuild needed hydro projects and to keep existing projects online. Last year, the Commission\nissued a Notice of Inquiry seeking public comment on whether certain routine post-licensing\nactivities, including maintenance, repairs, and upgrades, could be handled through a more\nefficient regulatory framework while remaining fully consistent with the FPA, NEPA, and other\napplicable laws. The Commission received substantial public input, and that record is now under\nactive consideration. Because this matter remains pending before the Commission, I cannot\ncomment on the timing or substance of any future Commission action. That said, I am\nmonitoring progress on this important issue and support responsible streamlining to accelerate\npost-licensing activities at licensed hydropower facilities, where practicable.\nQuestion 3: FERC's recent order on large loads is focused on making sure we can connect\nnew demand -particularly Al data centers- without compromising reliability or shifting\ncosts onto existing customers. Alaska isn't part of an RTO or ISO, but we're actively\nlooking at opportunities to attract data centers because of our abundant energy resources,\ncool climate, and strategic location.\nAs the Commission implements this policy, what lessons should states like Alaska take\naway? How can we welcome these large new loads while ensuring existing residential\ncustomers don't end up subsidizing the infrastructure needed to serve them?\nPage 5 of 6"},{"page":106,"startToken":45250,"endToken":45732,"text":"102\nU.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources\nJuly 22, 2026 Hearing: Oversight Hearing on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission\nQuestions for the Record Submitted to The Honorable Lindsay See\nAnswer: Growing electricity demand presents an important opportunity for States like Alaska.\nCareful planning (especially pairing generation with transmission planning), better load\nforecasting, upfront cost commitments, and using best practices to distinguish genuine demand\nfrom speculative load requests can help ensure infrastructure gets built where and when it is\nneeded while avoiding both overbuilding and underbuilding. Although Alaska is not part of an\nRTO or ISO, the same overarching principle applies.new large loads should pay their way, and\nStates play an indispensable role in protecting consumers while supporting reliable and\nQuestions from Senator Alex Padilla\nQuestion 1: The Commission's June 18th show-cause orders were a positive step toward\naddressing how large loads connect to the grid, a chief concern for many in my state. Cost-\nshifting and the risk that transmission and generation costs may become stranded if a data\ncenter downsizes, relocates, or never gets built in the first place are of particular concern.\n• When you review the responses to the June order, what will you be looking for to\nconclude that a tariff is just and reasonable in how it assigns the risk of these\nstranded assets?\nAnswer: Because the Commission's June 2026 show-cause proceedings are pending, I\ncannot comment on the merits of any specific proposal or prejudge how the Commission\nmay act. As a general matter, though, America's growing electricity demand presents an\nextraordinary opportunity, but meeting that opportunity requires clear, predictable rules\nthat support timely infrastructure development while protecting consumers. Because the\nFederal Power Act requires the Commission to ensure that jurisdictional rates remain just\nand reasonable, any framework addressing large loads must reflect cost-causation\nprinciples for wholesale costs within the Commission's jurisdiction. Other important\nfactors include promoting transparency, improving planning, encouraging alternative\ntransmission technologies in appropriate circumstances, and helping transmission\nproviders distinguish genuine demand from speculative load requests\n• What specific kinds of cost shifts from large loads to existing residential and small\nbusiness customers are you most concerned about, and how will these proceedings\nprevent them?\nAnswer: With the same caveat as above about not prejudging the Commission's pending\nshow-cause proceedings, I keep front-of-mind the Commission's core responsibility to\nensure just and reasonable rates. A growing load and a growing grid are good for\nAmerica, but growth should not come at the expense of existing customers. New large\nloads should pay their own way when it comes to the costs needed to connect to the grid.\nWith that in mind, the Commission should apply cost-causation principles rigorously\nwhen it comes to allocating costs within our jurisdiction, as well as promote transparency\nand otherwise work with the States to help protect residential customers and small\nbusinesses from inappropriate cost shifts.\nPage 6 of 6"},{"page":107,"startToken":45732,"endToken":46193,"text":"103\nU.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources\nJuly 22, 2026 Hearing: Oversight Hearing on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission\nQuestions for the Record Submitted to The Honorable Judy Chang\nQuestions from Ranking Member Martin Heinrich\nQuestion 1: DOE issued its draft National Transmission Needs Study, which found that the\nUS desperately needs more high voltage transmission lines to be built. Over the past nine\nyears, high-voltage transmission lines of 500 kV or more only made up 4% of the\nHow important is the buildout, and improvement, of high voltage, interregional\nA lack of transmission can be the bottleneck that prevents the flow of affordable, reliable\nelectricity from reaching customers. It is critically important that there be investment to upgrade\nthe current transmission system and ensure the nation has a robust grid. Interregional\ntransmission in particular can improve reliability and increase affordability by enabling the\nexchange of lower-cost electricity across regions. Reports from recent winter storms showed that\ntransfers enabled by interregional transmission were key to keeping the lights on, a fact that will\nbecome increasingly important as extreme weather becomes more frequent. Interregional\ntransmission can provide particular value during peak periods, which are the hours that drive\nresource adequacy needs. Enabling regions to rely on transfers from their neighbors during\nperiods of high demand could reduce the reliance on new generation and prevent costly\nQuestion 2: FERC has made improvements to generator interconnection processes\nthrough its Order No. 2023. But even with fixes to study times, generators can face\nexpensive network upgrades, leading to delaying generation deployment on the grid.\nWhat steps can FERC take to address the long generation interconnection delays caused by\nWhile Order No. 2023 went into effect in 2023, the Commission continues to review compliance\nfilings as transmission providers adjust their tariffs. Even in regions that may have completed the\ncompliance process, most transmission providers are still transitioning to the new procedures.\nMost reforms that seek to shorten study times have not yet been implemented, including where\nthere are penalties for late studies. As a result, the full impact of the revisions required under\nOrder No. 2023 remains to be seen. The root problem that leads to delays in the study process is\ncost uncertainty. In many locations, generation developers are routinely assigned costs that\nrepresent extremely expensive backbone transmission upgrades, which leads to withdrawals and\ndelays. Some regions have made reforms to address this upgrade cost uncertainty-for example,\nSPP with its Consolidated Planning Process-and others have endeavored to build backbone\ntransmission to enable new generation to come online more quickly and with more certainty,\nsuch as MISO's Multi-Value Projects and its Long Range Transmission Plan. I remain\nsupportive of these types of actions that aim to address the root issues of interconnection delays"},{"page":108,"startToken":46193,"endToken":46616,"text":"104\nU.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources\nJuly 22, 2026 Hearing: Oversight Hearing on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission\nQuestions for the Record Submitted to The Honorable Judy Chang\nQuestions from Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith\nQuestion 1: I want to commend the Commission for continuing to prioritize reliability\nacross the grid. There is a fine balance between interconnectivity and ensuring connectivity\ndoes not impede affordability and reliability.\n• Given the jurisdictional balance between federal and state regulators, how does\nFERC ensure it respects retail electric service agreements with data centers\nalongside generation and transmission siting authority when issuing show-cause\norders to grid operators?\nI acknowledge that the show cause orders are pending contested proceedings and thus I cannot\nspeak to the merits or pre-judge the outcome. As a former state energy official, I know the\nessential role that states play in meeting America's energy needs. Since joining the Commission,\nI have prioritized building a productive and collegial relationship with my state counterparts.\nReliability and affordability will be best protected when the Commission and its state\ncounterparts are working collaboratively.\nQuestions from Senator Catherine Cortez Masto\nQuestion 1: Are there ways that Congress and FERC can work together to bolster\nworkforce programs and ensure we have the expertise necessary to adhere to all of FERC's\nresponsibilities?\nThe Commission's workforce is specialized to fulfill our statutory responsibilities as designated\nby Congress. I appreciate the Chairman's efforts to resume hiring and thus ensure that we have\nadequate staffing levels to provide timely and sufficient analysis. Should Congress choose to\ngrant additional authorities to the Commission, it may be necessary to expand the Commission's\nworkforce to include additional skills and competencies\nQuestion 2: Under its five categories of reform for the June 2026 show cause orders, FERC\nincludes \"preventing cost sifting and requiring transparency into transmission costs.\" How\nwill FERC ensure that large loads, including data centers, bear their fair share of grid\nmodernization costs and do not shift those costs onto residential ratepayers, particularly\ngiven states' central role in regulating cost-shifting?\nI acknowledge that the show cause orders are pending contested proceedings and thus I cannot\nspeak to the merits or pre-judge the outcome. Generally, the Commission has operated under the\nprinciple of beneficiary pays. As the Commission moves forward with these and other\nproceedings, I am committed to keeping the impact on customer costs tront of mind. As a former\nstate energy official, I recognize the importance of states in ensuring affordability and will\ncontinue to work collaboratively with the states on this issue."},{"page":109,"startToken":46616,"endToken":47075,"text":"105\nU.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources\nJuly 22, 2026 Hearing: Oversight Hearing on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission\nQuestions for the Record Submitted to The Honorable Judy Chang\nQuestions from Senator Lisa Murkowski\nQuestion 1: The Homer Electric Association is a small rural electric cooperative in Alaska\nthat serves about 25,000 customers on the Kenai Peninsula. Several years ago, I was\nappalled to learn that during a hydropower relicensing proceeding, the U.S. Forest Service\ntried to make Homer build and maintain an unconstructed part of the Iditarod Trail near\nGrant Lake, including accessing parking lots and cleaning bathrooms in perpetuity, as part\nof the agency's so-called mandatory conditions under section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act\n(FPA). These requirements had nothing to do with the hydropower project or its impact on\nForest Service lands. Instead, Forest Service employees admitted to my staff that they long\nsought the trail's construction and 'had always wanted parking and bathroom facilities' in\nthe area and that the hydropower licensing process was their chance. They didn't care that\nthe co-op, and its customers, would be left footing the bill. The Homer Electric licensing\nproceeding has become a prominent example of how mandatory conditions under Sections\n4(e) and 18 of the FPA can dramatically increase project costs. And although it is a FERC\nlicense, the Commission has no discretion to reject a resource agency's conditions, no\nmatter how unreasonable, unnecessary, or unrelated to the project. Too often, agencies\nhave wielded mandatory conditions tied to hydropower licenses as a way to secure \"wish-\nlist\" items by using license applicants as ATMs.\n• Does the Commission believe the current statutory framework under the FPA\nappropriately balances resource agency authority with FERC's responsibility to\nlicense hydropower projects in the public interest?\nThe Commission relies on the expertise of partner agencies to understand how to best\nmanage specific resources. This partnership remains critically important to the\nCommission's ability to thoughtfully review and respond to permitting applications.\nHowever, while I recognize the mandate for shared responsibility between federal\nagencies as dictated by statute, I agree that in practice, this shared responsibility can be\nexercised in a way that places an inappropriate burden on licensees.\n• Do you agree that the FPA prevents the Commission from rejecting a mandatory\ncondition or prescription that is issued by a relevant resource agency? Can FERC\ndetermine if a resource agency's mandatory condition or prescription is in the\npublic interest?\nDecisions from the federal courts have restricted the Commission's ability to reject\nanother agency's mandatory condition or prescription.\n• Do you share my concern that egregious and unrelated mandatory conditions\nunnecessarily increase costs while discouraging hydropower development and that\nthis was not the intent of Title I of the FPA?"},{"page":110,"startToken":47075,"endToken":47537,"text":"106\nU.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources\nJuly 22, 2026 Hearing: Oversight Hearing on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission\nQuestions for the Record Submitted to The Honorable Judy Chang\nWhen considering hydropower applications, it is important to find a balance between\ndevelopment needs and public interest concerns.\n• Are there statutory or procedural changes that Congress should consider to tie\nmandatory conditions/prescription to the actual project and improve coordination\namong agencies while preserving environmental protections?\nIt is critically important that the Commission be able to continue collaborating with other\nagencies in evaluating project applications and resource conditions. If Congress would\nlike to make changes to the Commission's statutory responsibilities, we will work to\nimplement them.\nQuestion 2: Hydropower is an essential component of our nation's energy portfolio, yet\ndevelopers continue to cite permitting and regulatory delays as barriers to investment and\ndevelopment. Last November, the Commission released a Notice of Inquiry for a proposed\nblanket authorization treatment of post-licensing activities like maintenance, repairs, and\nupgrades. I'm also seeking similar reforms in the FLOWS Act, legislation I'm advancing\nwith Senator King. The goal is to provide meaningful regulatory certainty without\nWhat is the current status of FERC's consideration of a blanket authorization for\nhydropower projects? Will the Commission move to a rulemaking proceeding soon?\nI am a big supporter of hydropower projects and am enthusiastic about any opportunities for\nincreased efficiency in our hydroelectric authorization processes. The Commission has initiated a\nNotice of Inquiry on the blanket authorization and has received public comments, which will be\nthe basis of the record on which we proceed with the next step of the rulemaking process. I am\ncommitted to engaging on this topic as the rulemaking moves through its next steps\nQuestion 3: FERC's recent order on large loads is focused on making sure we can connect\nnew demand -particularly AI data centers-\n- without compromising reliability or shifting\ncosts onto existing customers. Alaska isn't part of an RTO or ISO, but we're actively\nlooking at opportunities to attract data centers because of our abundant energy resources,\ncool climate, and strategic location.\nAs the Commission implements this policy, what lessons should states like Alaska take\naway? How can we welcome these large new loads while ensuring existing residential\ncustomers don't end up subsidizing the infrastructure needed to serve them?\nI acknowledge that the show cause orders are pending contested proceedings and thus I cannot\nspeak to the merits or pre-judge the outcome. The orders identify key areas for potential reform,\nincluding ensuring equitable cost allocation and creating opportunities for flexibility that new\nlarge loads could provide to the system. If the Regulatory Commission of Alaskaor any state\nenergy regulatory body—is considering a new large load tariff, I encourage them to build upon"},{"page":111,"startToken":47537,"endToken":48036,"text":"107\nU.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources\nJuly 22, 2026 Hearing: Oversight Hearing on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission\nQuestions for the Record Submitted to The Honorable Judy Chang\nthe expertise developed in other states and regions that have already attracted significant new\nlarge loads.\nQuestions from Senator Alex Padilla\nQuestion 1: FERC recently directed the California ISO and Southwest Power Pool to\nreport on how they will handle seams between their two day-ahead electricity markets.\nThis is critically important to understand. As these markets develop, seams must be\nmanaged so that they don't undermine the cost and benefits of regionalized markets that\nWestern states have worked so hard to secure. What does the Commission hope to see in\nCAISO and SPP's reports? What commitments would give you confidence that these\nmarkets are supporting lower costs and increasing reliability?\nFundamentally, markets can produce benefits for ratepayers in the form of lower prices and\nincreased reliability. Given the complexities of the grid in the western United States and the\nanticipated seams between the various markets, I want to make sure that relevant entities are\nengaged early on this issue to avoid any problems. The potential risks are summarized well in the\nCommission's Seams Report.' As CAISO and SPP respond to the order, I hope to see a joint\nprioritization of issues that should be addressed to minimize the impact of various market seams\nand any inconsistent operational approaches across markets in the West, as well as reasonable\ntimelines to address these issues. I also hope to see that market operators productively engage\nstakeholders across the West in finding solutions, since the market structures will impact non-\nmarket participants as well.\nQuestion 2: It was encouraging to see the DOE's National Transmission Needs Study\nhighlight the pivotal role interregional transmission can play for our grid. Creative models\nlike the California ISO's Subscriber Model to bring in power from the SunZia HVDC line\nare starting to emerge to make interregional transmission a reality and keep costs from\nfalling onto ratepayers. That kind of innovation shows that regions are willing to take on\ncomplex interregional projects when the rules give them a workable path. How can FERC\nmake sure that successful models like CAISO's subscriber approach are the rule rather\nthan the rare exception?\nRegional and interregional transmission can improve reliability and increase affordability by\nenabling the exchange of lower-cost electricity within and across regions. While Order No. 1920\nimposed a requirement for long-term planning, it continues to allow states and transmission\ndevelopers to propose different projects to the regional planners and to bring innovative cost\nallocation approaches to the Commission. It is important that the Commission allow regions to\nimplement rules that meet their specific needs, and I respect states' rights to seek solutions that\nmeet those identified needs.\n' Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Staff, Seams Coordination in the Western\nInterconnection (Nov. 21, 2025), https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2025-\n11/Seams%20Coordination%20in%20the%20Western%20Interconnection.pdf."},{"page":112,"startToken":48036,"endToken":48255,"text":"108\nU.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources\nJuly 22, 2026 Hearing: Oversight Hearing on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission\nQuestions for the Record Submitted to The Honorable Judy Chang\nQuestion 3: Affordability is a chief concern to me and to my state, but I have heard\nconcerns that FERC's recent Opinion No. 594 action could result in uncertainty for\ninvestors in transmission projects. What was FERC's reasoning behind the Opinion, in\nparticular with regard to what customers will see on their bills now and in the future?\nHow did the Commission weigh the return on equity adjustment against concerns about\nregulatory uncertainty?\nThe Commission's core legal obligation is to ensure just and reasonable rates, which requires\nfinding a balance between incenting new investment and protecting ratepayers. In ratemaking\nmatters, we apply a consistent return on equity (ROE) policy as articulated in Order No. 569-A\nand revised following an appellate remand. Each ROE proceeding presents unique facts and\ncircumstances to which the Commission applies its ROE methodology fairly. In the case of\nOpinion No. 594, the Commission established a just and reasonable ROE for the New England\ntransmission owners. The decision followed a reasoned analytical framework in applying\nFERC's ROE methodology to that record. Opinion No. 594 made FERC's methodology clear\nand transparent to minimize regulatory uncertainty."},{"page":113,"startToken":48255,"endToken":48611,"text":"109\nU.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources\nJuly 22, 2026, Hearing: Oversight Hearing on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission\nQuestions for the Record Submitted to The Honorable David LaCerte\nQuestions from Ranking Member Martin Heinrich\nQuestion 1: DOE issued its draft National Transmission Needs Study, which found that the\nUS desperately needs more high voltage transmission lines to be built.\nOver the past nine years, high-voltage transmission lines of 500 kV or more only made up\n4% of the transmission building nationally.\nHow important is the buildout, and improvement, of high voltage, interregional\ntransmission in meeting our nation's energy needs?\nAnswer: The buildout of high-voltage interregional transmission is essential to maintaining the\nongoing safe and reliable operation of the interstate transmission grid. As the National\nTransmission Needs Study noted, interregional and cross-interconnection links have the highest\npotential value for congestion relief and resource adequacy. I recognize the importance of a\nrobust transmission system to ensure reliable and affordable service to customers. I am\nencouraged by recent approvals of 500 kV and above projects, such as in MISO, SPP, and\nCAISO, that can improve interregional transfer capability and will continue to encourage such\ndevelopment where cost effective. Moreover, Order No. 1920 requires transmission providers to\nevaluate potential projects with a common set of benefits, one of which specifically examines the\nbenefit of increasing import capability from other regions.\nOrder No. 2023. But even with fixes to study times, generators can face expensive network\nWhat steps can FERC take to address the long generation interconnection delays caused by\nhigh network upgrades?\nAnswer: Since issuance of Order No. 2023, the Commission has taken a number of steps to\nfurther address generation interconnection delays. For example, the Commission has acted on\nnumerous proposals from transmission providers seeking to improve their interconnection queue\nprocesses and queue times. One example is SPP's consolidated planning process, which is a\nnovel approach that considers transmission planning and generator interconnection in one\nprocess. In addition, my colleagues and I are also further considering how the use of advanced\ntransmission technologies could in some instances reduce the time and cost of generator\ninterconnection."},{"page":114,"startToken":48611,"endToken":49083,"text":"110\nU.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources\nJuly 22, 2026, Hearing: Oversight Hearing on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission\nQuestions for the Record Submitted to The Honorable David LaCerte\nQuestions from Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith\nOptional:\nQuestion 1: I want to commend the Commission for continuing to prioritize reliability across the\ngrid. There is a fine balance between interconnectivity and ensuring connectivity does not\nimpede affordability and reliability\n• Given the jurisdictional balance between federal and state regulators, how does FERC\nensure it respects retail electric service agreements with data centers alongside generation\nand transmission siting authority when issuing show-cause orders to grid operators?\nAnswer: The show cause orders the Commission issued in June 2026 to address the integration\nof large loads respect the authority of states to select, site, and permit generating resources and\ntransmission facilities and to set the rates, terms, and conditions of retail sales of electricity.\nMoreover, the show cause orders strive to increase transparency so that state public utility\ncommissions and other state regulators have the information they need to protect retail\nratepayers. I expect that the Commission's ongoing work on these show cause orders will\ncontinue to respect the states' role on these issues.\nQuestions from Senator Catherine Cortez Masto\nQuestion 1: Are there ways that Congress and FERC can work together to bolster workforce\nprograms and ensure we have the expertise necessary to adhere to all of FERC's responsibilities?\nAnswer: I appreciate the need to have a workforce that has the expertise to work on the\nimportant energy issues we must address for the American people. Although at this time 1 do not\nhave in mind ways that Congress and the Commission can work together on these staffing issues,\nI will identify such issues as they arise.\nQuestion 2: Under its five categories of reform for the June 2026 show cause orders, FERC\nincludes \"preventing cost shifting and requiring transparency into transmission costs.\" How will\nFERC ensure that large loads, including data centers, bear their fair share of grid modernization\ncosts and do not shift those costs onto residential ratepayers, particularly given states' central\nrole in regulating cost-shifting?\nAnswer: My colleagues and I take seriously concerns about protecting residential ratepayers\nfrom the costs of integrating large loads, including data centers, and these concerns factored\nheavily in the Commission's historic show cause orders. The orders the Commission issued in\nJune 2026 establish rigorous consumer safeguards. For example, the orders focus on preventing\ncost shifting as large loads integrate onto the grid, such that the costs of network upgrades are\nappropriately credited and not borne by other wholesale customers. In addition, because the\nstates will play a critical role in this process, these orders call for unprecedented transparency so\nthat cost information is available for, and can be used by, state regulators to protect retail\nratepayers."},{"page":115,"startToken":49083,"endToken":49592,"text":"111\nU.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources\nJuly 22, 2026, Hearing: Oversight Hearing on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission\nQuestions for the Record Submitted to The Honorable David LaCerte\nQuestions from Senator Lisa Murkowski\nQuestion 1: The Homer Electric Association is a small rural electric cooperative in Alaska that\nserves about 25,000 customers on the Kenai Peninsula. Several years ago, 1 was appalled to\nlearn that during a hydropower relicensing proceeding, the U.S. Forest Service tried to make\nHomer build and maintain an unconstructed part of the Iditarod Trail near Grant Lake, including\naccessing parking lots and cleaning bathrooms in perpetuity, as part of the agency's so-called\nmandatory conditions under section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act (FPA). These requirements\nhad nothing to do with the hydropower project or its impact on Forest Service lands. Instead,\nForest Service employees admitted to my staff that they long sought the trail's construction and\n'had always wanted parking and bathroom facilities' in the area and that the hydropower\ncensing process was their chance. They didn't care that the co-op, and its customers, would t\nft footing the bill. The Homer Electric licensing proceeding has become a prominent examp.\nof how mandatory conditions under Sections 4(e) and 18 of the FPA can dramatically increase\nproject costs. And although it is a FERC license, the Commission has no discretion to reject a\nresource agency's conditions, no matter how unreasonable, unnecessary, or unrelated to the\nproject. Too often, agencies have wielded mandatory conditions tied to hydropower licenses as a\nway to secure \"wish-list\" items by using license applicants as ATMs.\n• Does the Commission believe the current statutory framework under the FPA\nappropriately balances resource agency authority with FERC's responsibility to license\nhydropower projects in the public interest?\nAnswer: The Federal Power Act requires the Commission to consider multiple factors when\nissuing a hydroelectric license, including impacts on power generation, commerce, energy\nconservation, fish and wildlife protection and other environmental considerations, recreation,\nirrigation, flood control, and water supply. Congress also has given a number of agencies\nmandatory conditioning authority under FPA sections 4(e) and 18, section 401 of the Clean\nWater Act, and the Endangered Species Act, such that those agencies can impose conditions\npursuant to their statutory mandates. However, those agencies are not required to balance the\nmany interests that the Commission must consider, which may result in licenses with conditions\nnot necessary to satisfy the public interest.\n• Do you agree that the FPA prevents the Commission from rejecting a mandatory\ncondition or prescription that is issued by a relevant resource agency? Can FERC\ndetermine if a resource agency's mandatory condition or prescription is in the public\nAnswer: I agree, and the same is true for mandatory conditions issued pursuant to section 401 of\nthe Clean Water Act and under the Endangered Species Act. The Commission may express its\nopinion in the licensing order as to whether mandatory conditions or fishway prescriptions are\nconsistent with the public interest but has no authority to reject or revise them."},{"page":116,"startToken":49592,"endToken":50020,"text":"112\nU.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources\nJuly 22, 2026, Hearing: Oversight Hearing on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission\nQuestions for the Record Submitted to The Honorable David LaCerte\n• Do you share my concern that egregious and unrelated mandatory conditions\nunnecessarily increase costs while discouraging hydropower development and that this\nwas not the intent of Title I of the FPA?\nAnswer: Yes.\n• Are there statutory or procedural changes that Congress should consider to tie mandatory\nconditions/prescription to the actual project and improve coordination among agencies\nwhile preserving environmental protections?\nAnswer: I believe there are statutory changes that could better tie mandatory conditions to actual\nproject impacts and improve coordination among agencies. Such changes could include giving\nthe Commission the ability, as is the case with tish and wildlite conditions proffered under FPA\nsection 10(j), to determine whether mandatory conditions are consistent with Part I of the FPA or\nother law and, after consultation with the agencies that provided the conditions, to determine\nwhether alternative conditions might best satisfy the public interest.\nQuestion 2: Hydropower is an essential component of our nation's energy portfolio, yet\ndevelopers continue to cite permitting and regulatory delays as barriers to investment and\ndevelopment. Last November, the Commission released a Notice of Inquiry for a proposed\nblanket authorization treatment of post-licensing activities like maintenance, repairs, and\nupgrades. I'm also seeking similar reforms in the FLOWS Act, legislation I'm advancing with\nSenator King. The goal is to provide meaningful regulatory certainty without compromising\n• What is the current status of FERC's consideration of a blanket authorization for\nhydropower projects? Will the Commission move to a rulemaking proceeding soon?\nAnswer: The Commission is considering the comments that filed in response to the Notice of\nInquiry and will take further action as appropriate based on the record\nQuestion 3: FERC's recent order on large loads is focused on making sure we can connect new\ndemand-particularly Al data centers-without compromising reliability or shifting costs onto\nexisting customers. Alaska isn't part of an RTO or ISO, but we're actively looking at\nopportunities to attract data centers because of our abundant energy resources, cool climate, and\nstrategic location.\n• As the Commission implements this policy, what lessons should states like Alaska take\naway? How can we welcome these large new loads while ensuring existing residential\ncustomers don't end up subsidizing the infrastructure needed to serve them?\nAnswer: I take seriously the Commission's critical role in ensuring that our country can\nintegrate large loads onto the transmission system, not only to win the Al race through speed to"},{"page":117,"startToken":50020,"endToken":50221,"text":"113\nU.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources\nJuly 22, 2026, Hearing: Oversight Hearing on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission\nQuestions for the Record Submitted to The Honorable David LaCerte\npower for data centers, but also to reshore the heavy industrial and other manufacturing\nprocesses that are crucial to ensuring our global competitiveness. Supporting these goals,\nhowever, involves balancing the integration of large loads with the need for reliable and\naffordable power for ratepayers. The Commission's landmark show cause orders on large load\nintegration reflect this drive and careful balance in the RTO regions. In addition, these orders'\ncall for unprecedented transparency as to transmission cost information serve as an example of\nhow agreements between transmission providers and transmission customers in Alaska and other\nstates can assist large loads in receiving transmission service while also enhancing the ability of\nstate public utility commissions to protect retail ratepayers. The Commission continues to\nreview agreements filed by transmission providers operating in the non-RTO regions of the\ncountry. The Commission has accepted those agreements that reflect just and reasonable rates\nfor transmission service while rejecting those that do not fairly allocate transmission costs or\nwould intrude on state jurisdiction over retail ratemaking."}],"sections":[{"p":1,"at":0,"title":"Opening text","method":"opening text","endPage":38,"endAt":1324,"startToken":0,"endToken":15813},{"p":38,"at":1324,"title":"Conclusion","method":"printed heading","endPage":117,"endAt":1387,"startToken":15813,"endToken":50221}]}