Integrated Local, Regional, and Interregional Transmission Planning Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Casten, Sean [D-IL-6]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 24, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to modernize and integrate electric grid transmission planning across different scales to enhance reliability, affordability, and resilience, primarily through FERC-mandated rule changes and joint regional planning.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Federal Power Act to mandate the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to establish new rules for electricity transmission planning. It requires the integration of local, regional, and interregional transmission planning, considering short, medium, and long-term needs (up to 20 years or more) and a variety of future scenarios. It also requires joint planning between adjacent Transmission Planning Regions, identification of optimal transfer capabilities, and new cost allocation methodologies.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the current fragmented and reactive transmission planning processes are inadequate for modern grid challenges, leading to inefficiencies, higher costs, and reduced reliability. They contend that integrated, forward-looking planning, especially considering long-term scenarios and extreme weather, is crucial for grid resilience, facilitating renewable energy integration, and ensuring resource adequacy for large load facilities, ultimately benefiting consumers through improved service and lower costs.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill grants too much authority to FERC, potentially overriding state and local control over energy infrastructure decisions. They could raise concerns about the complexity and cost of implementing new planning requirements, the potential for new cost allocation methodologies to unfairly burden certain ratepayers, and the risk of federal overreach into areas traditionally managed at the state or regional level.
The bill is concise enough that an informed reader can grasp its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe, especially given its focus on regulatory process changes rather than direct appropriations.
Section 2(a), adding FPA Sec. 224(a)
New Definitions for Transmission Planning
This section introduces several key definitions for the new transmission planning framework. Important terms include 'covered local transmission facility' (local facilities whose replacement could offer regional/interregional benefits), 'improved reliability,' 'interregional transmission facility,' 'large load facility' (drawing >=30MW), 'regional transmission facility,' 'resilience,' 'resource adequacy,' and 'transmission benefit' (a comprehensive list including reliability, resilience, congestion reduction, access to lower cost generation, etc.). It also defines 'Transmission Planning Region' but explicitly exempts ERCOT.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that clear, comprehensive definitions are essential for a consistent and effective national transmission planning strategy, ensuring all stakeholders understand the scope and objectives of the new rules. Explicitly defining 'transmission benefit' allows for a holistic evaluation of projects.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that some definitions, like 'large load facility,' could lead to unintended consequences or place undue burdens on specific industries. The exemption of ERCOT might also be seen as inconsistent by some.
Tradeoffs
Balancing the need for broad, flexible definitions with the desire for precise, unambiguous language that avoids loopholes or misinterpretations. The ERCOT exemption highlights regional differences in regulatory approaches.
Section 2(a), adding FPA Sec. 224(b)
FERC Mandate for Integrated Transmission Planning Rule
This section mandates FERC to propose a rule within 6 months and issue a final rule within 18 months to modify existing transmission planning processes. The new rule must integrate planning for local, regional, and interregional facilities, account for near-term (under 5 years), medium-term (5-10 years), and long-term (10-20+ years) needs, and ensure long-term solutions replace less efficient short-term ones. It also requires using multiple scenarios (20+ years) that consider various factors like laws, resource plans, fuel costs, technology trends, generation retirements, interconnection requests, policy goals, and extreme weather risks.
Section 2(a), adding FPA Sec. 224(c)
Mandatory Joint and Integrated Transmission Planning
The final FERC rule must require each Transmission Planning Region to jointly plan with its immediately adjacent regions. Regions must solicit solutions and assumptions from transmission owners/developers. They must submit joint transmission plans to FERC for approval, which can be done individually with each adjacent region or as combined plans. Transmitting utilities and owners of covered local facilities must provide a 10-year 'in-kind replacement estimate' for facilities 200kV and above. Joint plans must identify local, regional, and interregional facilities. Finally, the rule must establish 'just and reasonable' cost allocation methodologies that assign costs to customers receiving benefits.
Section 2(a), adding FPA Sec. 224(d)
Required Components of Joint Transmission Plans
Joint transmission plans must include a common selection methodology for identifying and selecting transmission facilities (local, regional, interregional) for construction or modification. This methodology must comprehensively account for transmission benefits to maximize net benefits in the public interest and consider existing plans. Plans must also identify the 'minimum interregional transfer capability' between adjacent regions and include selection criteria for projects that improve reliability, resource adequacy, or resilience, protect consumers, and are consistent with the public interest.
Section 2(a), adding FPA Sec. 224(f) & (g)
FERC Plan Approval and Cost Allocation Principles
FERC is required to review each joint transmission plan and approve it if it meets the requirements of subsection (d), allocates costs according to subsection (g), ensures just and reasonable rates, and is consistent with the public interest. Subsection (g) states that transmitting utilities can file tariffs for cost allocation, which must reflect FERC's adopted principles, be just and reasonable, and allocate costs commensurate with benefits. Crucially, customers receiving 'no reasonably identifiable benefit' from a project cannot be involuntarily allocated costs.
Section 2(a), adding FPA Sec. 224(h)
Streamlined Permitting for Approved Projects
For projects selected by a Transmission Planning Region under an approved joint transmission plan, the process for obtaining a construction permit under Section 216(b) of the Federal Power Act is streamlined. Specifically, such projects are considered to satisfy paragraphs (2) through (6) of Section 216(b), which typically involve demonstrating public need, environmental impact, and state regulatory approvals.
Section 2(a), adding FPA Sec. 224(i) & (j)
FERC Role in Resolving Disputes and Ensuring Compliance
In case of a material dispute between adjacent Transmission Planning Regions regarding a joint plan, each region must submit its proposal to FERC, which must issue a resolution order within 60 days. If a Transmission Planning Region fails to submit a joint plan, FERC can grant a one-time 180-day extension, require submission by a firm date (with civil penalties for non-compliance), or require the region to comply with a FERC-approved plan based on the planning record and cost allocation provisions.
Section 2(a), adding FPA Sec. 224(k)
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Clarifications
This section clarifies how the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) applies. It states that FERC's acceptance of a joint transmission plan or its order resolving a dispute is not considered a 'major Federal action' for NEPA purposes. However, granting a construction permit under Section 216(b) for a project selected in a joint plan is considered a 'major Federal action.'
The definition of 'Transmission Planning Region' explicitly excludes the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) and the region served by its members.
Section 2(a), adding FPA Sec. 224(a)(14)(B)
Why it matters:This is a significant carve-out for a major U.S. grid operator, reflecting Texas's unique regulatory and grid independence. It's standard legislative practice to include such specific exemptions, but its impact is substantial.
Case for: Supporters of the exemption argue that ERCOT is an independent system, largely self-regulated, and its inclusion in federal planning mandates would be an unwarranted intrusion into state sovereignty and a departure from its established operational model.
Case against: Critics might argue that excluding ERCOT creates a significant gap in national grid planning, especially given its size and past reliability challenges (e.g., Winter Storm Uri), potentially hindering broader grid resilience and interregional support.
Estimated impact: Keeps a major U.S. electricity market (Texas) outside the scope of the new federal integrated transmission planning requirements, affecting approximately 90% of Texas's electric load.
The common selection methodology for transmission facilities must allow for the selection of projects 'including through the use of advanced transmission conductors (including superconductors), reconductoring, and grid-enhancing technologies.'
Section 2(a), adding FPA Sec. 224(d)(1)(A)
Why it matters:This is a technical detail within a broader procedural requirement. It's likely included to ensure that planning processes consider modern, potentially more efficient technologies, rather than just traditional build-out.
Case for: Proponents argue that explicitly mentioning these technologies encourages innovation and ensures that planning processes consider the most efficient and cost-effective solutions for grid upgrades, potentially reducing the need for new rights-of-way.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against encouraging advanced technologies, though some might argue that mandating their consideration could lead to unproven or overly expensive solutions being prioritized without sufficient justification.
Estimated impact: Encourages the adoption of newer technologies in transmission planning, potentially leading to more efficient grid upgrades and reduced infrastructure footprint.