PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Casten, Sean [D-IL-6] · D–IL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Oct 5, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10539 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10539 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10539 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10539 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-09-24 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed Integrated Local, Regional, and Interregional Transmission Planning Act of 2026 would require electricity transmission planners to coordinate local, regional, and neighboring-region plans under federal oversight. Plans would consider future electricity needs and options for improving the grid. Transmission costs would be allocated according to benefits, and customers with no reasonably identifiable benefit could not be forced to pay for a project. The proposal also changes permitting rules for selected projects and excludes the Electric Reliability Council of Texas and its members’ service region from its definition of a planning region.
This Act may be cited as the Integrated Local, Regional, and Interregional Transmission Planning Act of 2026.
integrate the planning for interregional transmission facilities, regional transmission facilities, and covered local transmission facilities
The Commission shall require that tariffs or tariff revisions filed pursuant to this section are just and reasonable and allocate the costs in a manner commensurate with benefits, including through transmission benefits.
Customers that receive no reasonably identifiable benefit, from the construction or modification of a transmission facility pursuant to this section shall not be involuntarily allocated any of the costs of such construction or modification.
For the purposes of obtaining a construction permit under section 216(b), a project that is selected by a Transmission Planning Region pursuant to a joint transmission plan shall be considered to satisfy paragraphs (2) through (6) of section 216(b).
The term Transmission Planning Region does not include the Electric Reliability Council of Texas or the region served by members of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas.
Section 2 would add a transmission-planning section to the Federal Power Act, administered by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, called the Commission below.
Part II of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following: 224. Planning for transmission facilities that enhance grid reliability, affordability, and resilience
The term Commission means the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Covered local facilities would be transmission facilities planned outside regional or interregional planning whose replacement could provide regional or interregional benefits. The listed local needs include replacing aging equipment, serving growing demand, withstanding disruptions, operational flexibility, and efficiency.
The term covered local transmission facility means an electric transmission facility— (A) that is planned by a transmission owner outside of an interregional or regional planning process to address needs, including— (i) asset management or replacement (including end-of-life replacement that may be driven by equipment, material, condition, performance, or risk); (ii) load growth; (iii) infrastructure resilience; (iv) operational flexibility; and (v) efficiency; and (B) the replacement of which has the potential to provide transmission benefits if used as a regional transmission facility or an interregional transmission facility.
An interregional facility could qualify by being located in two or more immediately neighboring planning regions, or by significantly affecting electricity transfers between neighboring regions, as determined by those regions.
The term interregional transmission facility means an electric transmission facility that— (A) is located within 2 or more immediately adjacent Transmission Planning Regions; or (B) as determined by the Transmission Planning Regions, significantly impacts the ability of 1 or more Transmission Planning Regions to transmit electricity among immediately adjacent Transmission Planning Regions.
The proposal expressly excludes the Electric Reliability Council of Texas and the region served by its members from the definition of a Transmission Planning Region.
(B) Exemption The term Transmission Planning Region does not include the Electric Reliability Council of Texas or the region served by members of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas.
The proposal defines a large load facility as a commercial or industrial site drawing at least 30 megawatts from the grid that a designated reliability or planning body determines may pose reliability risks. Its definition of improved reliability requires a material improvement that, on balance, ultimately benefits electricity customers, including these facilities.
The term large load facility means a commercial or industrial facility, or an aggregation of such facilities at a single site, that— (A) draws at least 30 megawatts of electric power from the electric grid; and (B) may pose reliability risks to the bulk-power system, as determined by the ERO, the appropriate Transmission Planning Region, or other appropriate body, as determined by the Commission, due to the demand for electricity from such facility, the operational characteristics of such facility, or other factors.
The term improved reliability means that, on balance, reliability of electric energy is improved in a material manner that ultimately benefits customers of electric energy, including large load facilities
Benefits considered in planning would include reliability, the ability to withstand disruptions, less congestion and power loss, better use of the grid, access to lower-cost generation, improved grid access, and avoided future construction costs. These are categories to evaluate, not guaranteed results.
The term resilience means the ability to prepare for and withstand disruptions to electric supply or demand.
The term transmission benefit includes— (A) improved reliability; (B) improved resilience; (C) reduced transmission congestion; (D) reduced power losses; (E) greater grid utilization; (F) improved access to lower cost generation; (G) improved access to the electric grid by transmission customers; (H) improved access to the electric grid by new generation facilities; and (I) cost savings associated with the avoidance of the need for the construction or modification of transmission facilities or new generation capacity at a later date.
The Commission would have to propose a rule within six months after enactment and issue a final rule within 18 months to revise existing transmission-planning processes.
Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this section, the Commission shall propose a rule, and not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this section, the Commission shall issue a final rule, to modify and augment existing transmission planning processes
The rule would integrate local, regional, and interregional planning and address needs over periods of less than five years, five to ten years, and ten to twenty years and beyond. It would be directed to replace less efficient short-term solutions with more efficient or cost-effective long-term solutions.
(1) integrate the planning for interregional transmission facilities, regional transmission facilities, and covered local transmission facilities; (2) account for near-term (less than 5 years), medium term (5–10 years), and long term (10–20 years and beyond) transmission needs; (3) ensure that more efficient or cost-effective long-term solutions replace the need for less efficient short-term solutions
Planning would use a reasonable number of scenarios covering at least 20 years. Factors would include government and Tribal laws and policy goals, state-approved resource plans, fuel and technology trends, planned generator retirements, requests to connect generation or electricity demand to the grid, and extreme-weather risks.
(4) utilize a reasonable number of scenarios of 20 years or more that include a reasonable number of factors that affect electricity demand and current and future resource mix, including— (A) Federal, State, and local laws and regulations, and laws and regulations of federally recognized Indian Tribes, affecting the resource mix and electricity demand; (B) State-approved integrated resource plans; (C) trends in fuel costs and in the cost, performance, and availability of technologies for generation, energy storage resources, and building and transportation electrification; (D) planned retirement of generation facilities; (E) generator and load interconnection requests; (F) Federal, State, and local policy goals and policy goals of federally recognized Indian Tribes; and (G) the risk of extreme weather events.
Each planning region would have to plan jointly with every immediately neighboring region and seek proposed solutions, assumptions, and cost-estimation guidance from transmission owners and developers. Regions could submit separate plans with individual neighbors or plans involving multiple neighbors for Commission approval.
(1) require each Transmission Planning Region to jointly plan with each of its immediately adjacent Transmission Planning Regions; (2) require each Transmission Planning Region to solicit transmission solutions, recommended assumptions, and cost estimation guides from transmission owners and developers; (3) require each Transmission Planning Region to submit to the Commission for approval a joint transmission plan with immediately adjacent Transmission Planning Regions, which requirement may, at the discretion of the Transmission Planning Region, be satisfied through the submission of— (A) a separate joint transmission plan with each immediately adjacent Transmission Planning Region; or (B) 1 or more joint transmission plans, any of which may be submitted with one or more immediately adjacent Transmission Planning Regions
Transmitting utilities and owners of covered local facilities would have to provide estimates of facilities expected to be replaced with equivalent new facilities over the next ten years. The estimate would cover facilities operating at 200 kilovolts or more, or a lower threshold set by the Commission. Joint plans would identify covered local, regional, and interregional facilities in each region’s service territory.
The term in-kind replacement estimate means an estimate of the electric transmission facilities operating at and above 200 kilovolts, or a lower threshold as determined by the Commission, that the transmitting utilities that own the electric transmission facilities anticipate replacing in-kind with new electric transmission facilities during the next 10 years.
(4) require each transmitting utility and owner of a covered local transmission facility to provide to the relevant Transmission Planning Region an in-kind replacement estimate; (5) require each Transmission Planning Region to identify in each joint transmission plan submitted to the Commission pursuant to paragraph (3) the covered local transmission facilities, regional transmission facilities, and interregional transmission facilities that are in the service territory of the Transmission Planning Region
The rule would establish methods for dividing costs of projects selected for cost allocation. Those methods would have to be just and reasonable and assign costs to customers receiving transmission benefits.
(6) establish cost allocation methodologies applicable to projects selected for cost allocation under the transmission planning processes modified and augmented under subsection (b) that are just and reasonable and allocate the costs of transmission to customers that receive transmission benefits.
Joint plans would need a common method for selecting facilities for construction or modification, including advanced conductors, replacement conductors, and grid-enhancing technologies. The method would comprehensively account for benefits and costs, seek to maximize net benefits in the public interest, and consider plans existing when the section is enacted.
(1) Common selection methodology A methodology that— (A) allows for the joint identification and selection, by any immediately adjacent Transmission Planning Region, of specific regional transmission facilities, interregional transmission facilities, and covered local transmission facilities for construction or modification, including through the use of advanced transmission conductors (including superconductors), reconductoring, and grid-enhancing technologies; (B) reflects a comprehensive accounting of transmission benefits, such that total transmission benefits net of costs can be maximized in consideration of public interest; and (C) takes into account existing transmission plans as of the date of enactment of this section.
Plans would identify the optimal electricity-transfer capability between neighboring regions. Their project-selection criteria would require improved reliability, sufficient deliverable generation to meet demand, or resilience; protection or benefits for consumers; and consistency with the public interest.
(2) Minimum interregional transfer capability An identification of the optimal transfer capability between each Transmission Planning Region and any immediately adjacent Transmission Planning Region. (3) Selection criteria Criteria governing the selection by Transmission Planning Regions, for construction or modification, of transmission facilities that— (A) provide improved reliability, resource adequacy, or resilience; (B) protect or benefit consumers; and (C) are consistent with the public interest.
The term resource adequacy means, with respect to an electric system, the ability of the electric system to meet the energy needs of electricity customers, by having sufficient generation that is deliverable to meet projected electric demand.
Initial joint plans would be due within one year after the final rule takes effect. Updated plans would have to be submitted at least once every three years afterward.
(e) Deadline; updates The joint transmission plans required to be submitted to the Commission pursuant to the final rule issued under subsection (b) shall be— (1) submitted to the Commission not later than 1 year after the date such final rule takes effect; and (2) updated and submitted to the Commission not less frequently than once every 3 years thereafter.
The Commission would review each plan and approve it if it meets the required plan elements and cost-allocation rules, ensures just and reasonable rates and terms without undue discrimination or preference, and serves the public interest.
(f) Commission review The Commission shall— (1) review each joint transmission plan submitted pursuant to the final rule issued under subsection (b); and (2) approve such joint transmission plan if the Commission finds that the plan— (A) meets the requirements of subsection (d); (B) allocates costs in accordance with subsection (g); (C) ensures that all rates, charges, terms, and conditions will be just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential; and (D) is consistent with the public interest.
Utilities owning, controlling, or operating facilities built or modified under a submitted joint plan could file a tariff—a schedule of rates and terms—or a revision to allocate project costs. Filed methods would have to follow the Commission’s final-rule principles, and charges would have to be just and reasonable and reflect benefits.
any transmitting utility that owns, controls, or operates transmission facilities constructed or modified pursuant to a joint transmission plan submitted pursuant to this section may file a tariff or tariff revision with the Commission pursuant to section 205 and the regulations of the Commission allocating the costs of the new or modified transmission facilities. Any cost allocation methodology filed for such a transmission project shall reflect cost allocation principles adopted by the Commission in the final rule issued under this section.
The Commission shall require that tariffs or tariff revisions filed pursuant to this section are just and reasonable and allocate the costs in a manner commensurate with benefits, including through transmission benefits.
Customers receiving no reasonably identifiable benefit from a facility’s construction or modification could not be involuntarily charged any of those construction or modification costs.
(3) Ratepayer protection Customers that receive no reasonably identifiable benefit, from the construction or modification of a transmission facility pursuant to this section shall not be involuntarily allocated any of the costs of such construction or modification.
For a construction permit under Federal Power Act section 216(b), a project selected by a planning region under a joint plan would be treated as satisfying paragraphs (2) through (6) of that permitting provision. This is a specified permitting shortcut, not an express grant of a permit.
(h) Construction permit For the purposes of obtaining a construction permit under section 216(b), a project that is selected by a Transmission Planning Region pursuant to a joint transmission plan shall be considered to satisfy paragraphs (2) through (6) of section 216(b).
When neighboring regions dispute a material part of a joint plan, each affected region would submit its proposed solution to the Commission. The Commission would have to order a resolution within 60 days after submission.
(i) Dispute resolution In the event of a dispute with an immediately adjacent Transmission Planning Region with respect to a material element of a joint transmission plan— (1) each applicable Transmission Planning Region shall submit to the Commission their respective proposals for resolving the material element in dispute for resolution; and (2) not later than 60 days after the proposals are submitted under paragraph (1), the Commission shall issue an order directing a resolution to the dispute.
If a region failed to submit a plan, the Commission would choose an appropriate response: grant a requested one-time extension of up to 180 days, set a firm deadline backed by civil penalties for noncompliance, or require compliance with a Commission-approved plan based on the planning record and the bill’s cost-allocation protections.
(j) Failure To submit plan If a Transmission Planning Region fails to submit to the Commission a joint transmission plan pursuant to this section, the Commission shall, as the Commission determines to be appropriate— (1) grant a request for a one-time extension of the time for submission of the joint transmission plan by up to 180 days; (2) require the affected Transmission Planning Region to submit to the Commission a joint transmission plan by a firm date established by the Commission or be subject to civil penalty under this Act for noncompliance; or (3) require the affected Transmission Planning Region to comply with a joint transmission plan approved by the Commission— (A) based on the record of the planning process conducted by the transmission planning region; and (B) in accordance with the cost allocation provisions in subsection (g).
For the National Environmental Policy Act, accepting a joint plan or ordering resolution of a planning dispute would not count as a major federal action, a classification relevant to environmental review. Granting a section 216(b) permit for a project selected under a joint plan would count as a major federal action.
(k) NEPA For purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969— (1) any acceptance of a joint transmission plan submitted to the Commission pursuant to the final rule issued under this section, or issuance of an order directing resolution of a dispute under subsection (i), shall not be considered a major Federal action; and (2) granting a permit under section 216(b) for a project that is selected by a Transmission Planning Region pursuant to a joint transmission plan shall be considered a major Federal action.
A separate amendment would insert facilities selected for construction or modification under a Commission-approved joint plan into section 216(b)’s permitting language. The supplied text does not reproduce the surrounding existing provision.
(b) Siting of interregional facilities Section 216(b) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824p(b)) is amended by inserting selected for construction or modification pursuant to a joint transmission plan approved by the Commission pursuant to section 224 or after construction or modification of electric transmission facilities.
The bill would add references to new section 224 in Federal Power Act sections 201(b)(2) and 201(e), and remove the reference to section 206(f) from section 201(e). The surrounding statutory text is not supplied, so these edits alone do not explain their full legal effect.
(c) Conforming amendments Section 201 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824) is amended— (1) in subsection (b)(2)— (A) in the first sentence, by striking and 222 and inserting 222, and 224; and (B) in the second sentence, by striking or 222 and inserting 222, or 224; and (2) in subsection (e)— (A) by striking 206(f),; and (B) by striking or 222 and inserting 222, or 224.
Except for changes expressly made, the new planning section would preserve the Commission’s authority under other laws. Section 2 expressly would not grant Commission authority over retail electricity sales or local electricity distribution.
(l) Savings provisions Except as expressly provided in this section, nothing in this section shall be construed as conferring, limiting, or impairing any authority of the Commission under any other provision of law.
(d) Savings provision Nothing in this section or an amendment made by this section grants the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission authority over sales of electricity at retail or the local distribution of electricity.
The supplied action snapshot, updated October 5, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on September 24, 2026. It does not establish any later legislative action or enactment.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-05T16:36:57Z. 2026-09-24: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. 2026-09-24: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-24. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced-text version. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced-text version. This conclusion is limited to that version; accompanying disclosure and committee materials are not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
Findings to examine
The supplied text contains an express geographic exclusion and special permitting treatment for a defined class of projects. Both relate to the main transmission-planning policy; identifying them does not establish improper purpose.
The Electric Reliability Council of Texas and its members’ service region would be excluded from the definition of a Transmission Planning Region, a named geographic carve-out from requirements imposed on those regions.
(B) Exemption The term Transmission Planning Region does not include the Electric Reliability Council of Texas or the region served by members of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas.
(1) require each Transmission Planning Region to jointly plan with each of its immediately adjacent Transmission Planning Regions
Projects selected by a planning region under a joint plan would receive special permitting treatment: they would be deemed to satisfy paragraphs (2) through (6) of Federal Power Act section 216(b). This favors the selected project class within the bill’s planning framework, but the omitted existing-law text prevents a full assessment of the requirements displaced.
(h) Construction permit For the purposes of obtaining a construction permit under section 216(b), a project that is selected by a Transmission Planning Region pursuant to a joint transmission plan shall be considered to satisfy paragraphs (2) through (6) of section 216(b).
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 5, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI