Docket No. CX26-2-000
We write separately to express our support in approving the Commission’s adoption of Tennessee Valley Authority’s (TVA) categorical exclusions 22 and 23. We note that we previously supported adopting other categorical exclusions from TVA.1 These categorical exclusions represent a pragmatic step toward regulatory efficiency and will reduce the administrative burden for approving activities that pose minimal or no environmental impact. Progress and regulatory oversight need to strike an appropriate balance and should always be viewed through the lens of statutory authority. In short, consistent with our shared priorities, today’s action will expedite the turnaround for certain approvals by the Commission.2 Moreover, the categorical exclusions we adopt today may shine an even brighter light on the Commission’s November 20, 2025 notice inviting public comment on its processes for reviewing certain post-licensing activities at hydroelectric projects under Part I of the Federal Power Act (FPA) (Hydroelectric NOI).3
The regulatory framework of the FPA is designed as a cohesive lifecycle for hydroelectric project development. FPA section 10(a) establishes the “comprehensive plan” at license issuance and project inception.4 FPA section 10(c) thereafter imposes a continuous, affirmative duty on the licensee to maintain project works in a state of adequate repair.5 And, FPA section 10(b) serves as the jurisdictional gatekeeper, reserving Commission prior approval for substantial alterations or additions from the approved plan.6
In furtherance of the review that the Commission began in the Hydroelectric NOI, it is our hope that this Commission will continually review our existing interpretations and practices with an eye on ensuring that they do not exceed the statutory criteria outlined by Congress. In that review, we encourage our colleagues such that the Commission does not act in a manner that unnecessarily creates or supports undue delays for necessary investment in hydroelectric projects. For example, when a licensee must upgrade aging turbine components with modern equivalents that improve reliability, rewind a generator, undertake routine maintenance, does our current paradigm create unnecessary delays and costs? If so, do those delays affect grid reliability, public safety, ratepayers, and Commission resources? Should activities consistent with FPA section 10(b) that do not impact project operations or safety at hydroelectric projects be covered by a blanket authorization? Would identifying a non-exhaustive and non‑exclusive list of maintenance activities that are consistent with section 10(c) do the same? We are eager to tackle these issues in the Hydroelectric NOI and through every vehicle available to the Commission so that modernization and upgrades are not faced with unnecessary bureaucracy.
We also encourage the Commission to continue its efforts in identifying whether there are certain activities at natural gas and liquefied natural gas facilities that could be included as categorical exclusions to streamline our environmental reviews for activities that other federal agencies have found to have no significant effect on the human environment. We look forward to working with our colleagues on that front.
We appreciate the opportunity to share these thoughts and look forward to working with our fellow Commissioners as we consider these issues that are vital to the growth and reliability of the industries and the markets that this Commission regulates.
For these reasons, we respectfully concur.
- 1Order Adopting Categorical Exclusions from Tennessee Valley Authority under the National Environmental Policy Act, 194 FERC ¶ 61,128 (2026) (Comm’rs LaCerte and Rosner, concurring).
- 2David LaCerte, “Written Testimony of David LaCerte, Nominee to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission” (written testimony, United States Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, September 4, 2025); “Written Testimony of David LaCerte, Commissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission” (written testimony, United States House of Representatives Subcommittee on Energy, February 3, 2026); “Written Testimony of David LaCerte, Commissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission” (written testimony, United States Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, February 25, 2026). David Rosner, “Written Testimony of David Rosner, Commissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission” (written testimony, United States House of Representatives Subcommittee on Energy, February 3, 2026); “Written Testimony of David Rosner, Commissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission” (written testimony, United States House of Representatives Subcommittee on Energy, Climate, and Grid Security, July 24, 2024).
- 3Authorizations for Certain Post-Licensing Activities at Hydroelectric Projects, 193 FERC ¶ 61,140 (2025).
- 4FPA section 10(a)(1) (codified at 16 U.S.C. § 803(a)(1)) is the statutory basis for the Commission’s licensing authority. It mandates that any project the Commission approves must be “best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway or waterways for the use. . . .”.
- 5U.S.C. § 803(c) (“the licensee shall maintain the project works in a condition or repair adequate…for the efficient operation of said works…shall make all necessary renewals and replacements…shall conform to such rules and regulations as the Commission may from time to time prescribe…”).
- 6U.S.C. § 803(b) (explaining “[t]hat except when emergency shall require for the protection of navigation, life, health, or property, no substantial alteration or addition not in conformity with the approved plans shall be made…”) (emphasis added).