⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

American Electric Power Service Corporation and other transmission owners challenge requirements for agreements governing transmission projects. PJM selects power-line projects and upgrades to meet transmission needs, then identifies the companies responsible for building them. The dispute began when consumer organizations, including American Municipal Power, complained that PJM was not obtaining all the designated entity agreements required by its rules. These project agreements set construction obligations and milestones, and can also require financial security. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, known as FERC, found that PJM had not followed its agreement rules. It removed security requirements for certain projects without competing outside developers, but retained the remaining agreement requirements. It also kept full agreements for some competitively selected projects even when their costs would not be shared across the region. The transmission owners sought rehearing and now challenge the requirements that remain. They will argue that existing contracts and PJM's public project information already provide the needed protections, making the additional paperwork and financing costs unjustified. FERC will argue that binding milestones add transparency and accountability, and that comparable rules must apply throughout a competitive selection process. American Municipal Power will defend the requirements as protections for customers who ultimately pay the project costs. The judges will examine whether the challengers met their burden to show that the existing requirements were unjust or unreasonable, and whether FERC adequately explained its decision to retain them.

American Electric Power Service Corporation v. FERC (No. 24-1361) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued November 13, 2026.