Moscow and Pyongyang have quite obviously deepened their relations in unprecedented ways over the past years since the Ukraine war began, and this has been most on display with the transfer of thousands of North Korean troops in support of Russian forces, and DPRK soldiers even losing their lives while fighting Ukraine.

So it’s only to be expected that Russia side with North Korea in the long-running conflict and standoff with South Korea. But now the Kremlin senses Seoul is moving ever closer to NATO, to the point that it’s calling out the deepened military relations.

Russia has newly made clear its position that it is unacceptable for South Korea to become a de facto participant in the alliance’s rearmament efforts.

The Russian Foreign Ministry said in a new statement issued following a meeting between Deputy Foreign Minister Andrey Rudenko and South Korean Ambassador to Moscow Lee Seok Bae:

“The Russian side expressed serious concern over Seoul’s growing drift toward NATO, as demonstrated, among other things, by the Republic of Korea’s practical steps to deepen military and military-technical cooperation with the North Atlantic Alliance, the consequences of which pose a threat to Russia’s security,” the statement said.

The ministry stated that “it is unacceptable for the Republic of Korea to become a de facto participant in NATO’s qualitative and quantitative rearmament process, as the alliance has openly declared its preparations for war with Russia.”

Of course, South Korea is not a NATO member and full membership remains unrealistic; however, it is seen by Brussels as a highly integrated “Indo-Pacific partner” – and of course the United States has a permanent large-scale troop presence there.

Major General Eray Üngüder, Director of NATO’s Cooperative Security Division, declared in June that “The Republic of Korea is a longstanding Partner of NATO and we are grateful to have this strongly committed partnership.”

And NATO describes on its website of relations with Seoul that “This collaboration, initiated in 2005, involves joint efforts in several fields including cybersecurity, capability development, new technologies and countering hybrid threats. This year’s conversations primarily addressed topics like interoperability, standardization and cyber exercises.”

But Moscow definitely sees thing differently. It agrees with Kim Jong Un that Washington is an ‘imperialist’ power and hegemon, and through constant military flexing, sows instability from Eastern Europe to the South Pacific.

Authored by David Manney via PJMedia.com,

Fake training records can move an unprepared driver one step closer to a commercial license.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy and Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin are now investigating about 75 entry-level driver training schools suspected of doing exactly that.

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has identified approximately 75 entry-level driving training schools suspected of fraudulent activities, including using improper driver certifications, falsifying training records, and failing to properly train drivers applying for CDLs, among other violations. USDOT will engage DHS’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) in its investigations of these schools.

“USDOT has spent the last year rooting out bad actors from our trucking industry,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy. “We’ve knocked over 24,000 drivers off our roads for failing to speak English, forced states to cancel over 28,000 licenses illegally issued to foreign drivers, and purged over 9,500 unqualified training schools from our FMCSA registry. DHS will be a force multiplier of our efforts to clean up America’s roads. President Trump is using every lever at his disposal to ensure the safety of American families.”

“Too many American lives have been lost in completely avoidable accidents because illegal aliens have been granted commercial driver’s licenses to drive trucks and 18-wheelers on America’s roadways,” said DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin. “DHS law enforcement is partnering with the Department of Transportation to eliminate CDL fraud, strengthen the integrity of the CDL system, and investigate commercial driver’s license schools throughout the country. This is a whole of government approach, to keep America’s roads safe.”

This is part of the administration’s ongoing efforts to root out fraud from American trucking and restore integrity to the industry.

Federal officials say the schools may have used improper certifications, falsified training records, or failed to train CDL applicants properly. Homeland Security Investigations will work with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to determine whether poor instruction crossed into criminal fraud.

The licensing system gives training schools enormous power. Federal rules require many first-time applicants to complete approved instruction before taking a CDL skills test.

Registered schools then submit completion records electronically, and state licensing agencies use those records to decide whether an applicant may test.

Providers also self-certify that they meet federal standards when joining the registry. A dishonest school damages the first major checkpoint before an applicant ever sits for the road test. Fraud at that stage reaches far beyond paperwork.

Duffy’s department had already found deep problems. In February, more than 300 investigators conducted 1,426 on-site inspections across all 50 states. They issued 448 proposed removal notices, while 109 providers removed themselves after learning investigators were coming. Another 97 remained under investigation.

The violations were not harmless technical errors. Investigators found instructors without the proper licenses, schools using the wrong vehicles, incomplete student assessments, and providers that failed to meet their state requirements. One school had even trained bus drivers.

Nearly 10,000 training locations have now been removed from the federal registry. The department also says more than 24,000 drivers were taken out of service for failing English proficiency requirements, while states canceled more than 28,000 licenses illegally issued to foreign drivers.

Those numbers expose a system that went too long without firm inspection. The new joint probe adds criminal investigators who can follow records, payments, identities, and possible coordination between schools and applicants.

Legitimate driving schools and qualified immigrant drivers should welcome the cleanup. Fraudulent operators cheapen the work of every instructor who teaches the rules and every driver who earns a CDL lawfully. They also leave responsible trucking companies exposed when a bad credential slips through.

A commercial license is permission to operate some of the largest vehicles on American roads. Families traveling beside them can’t inspect a driver’s school records or verify who provided the training. The government carries that duty before the license is issued.

Duffy and Mullin are finally treating driver training as part of highway safety rather than an administrative formality. The 75 schools remain under investigation, and officials still must establish what each one did. Every false record should be traced to the driver, licensing office, and person who profited from it because a forged certificate should never become a license to endanger everyone else.

While the Pentagon publicly clings to a $30 billion price tag for its war against Iran, internal Defense Department assessments (unsurprisingly) paint a far more staggering picture: the true cost is rapidly closing in on the $80 billion to $100 billion range, according to NBC News.

The Pentagon’s Office of Management and Budget told Congress on June 30 that US military operations against Iran so far is $30 billion: “We’ve spent about $30 billion,” OMB Director Russel Vought told the House Appropriations Committee. 

NBC’s new assessment bluntly states the following, however: “The cost of the war with Iran could be more than triple the most recent estimate of roughly $30 billion, according to three U.S. officials and three people familiar with the internal cost estimates.”

The lower figure was reportedly initially floated based a classic Washington accounting trick which only evaluates the cost of expended missiles and munitions while conveniently ignoring the charred remnants of American hardware and damaged bases littering the Gulf states after Iranian retaliatory attacks, the report explains.

The estimate featured in the NBC report accounts for actually rebuilding those installations previously attacked by Iran. Judging by how things are going this week – after five consecutive days of renewed fighting – the final bill from damage will only keep pushing up from here.

It has been well documented that while American troops at Gulf bases across the Strait of Hormuz and Persian Gulf were by and large pulled back from near ‘front lines’ – large US military assets like refueling tankers were in some cases left behind, resulting in scenes like the following:

“Five U.S. Air Force refueling planes were struck and damaged on the ground at Prince Sultan air base in Saudi Arabia, according to two U.S. officials,” The Wall Street Journal reported in mid-March. Each one costs hundreds of millions.

“The tankers were hit during an Iranian missile strike on the Saudi base in recent days, the officials said,” WSJ detailed at the time. “U.S. Central Command declined to comment. The tankers were damaged but not fully destroyed and are being repaired, one of the officials said. No one was killed in the strikes.”

And in Bahrain, home of the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet, damage to military facilities is already estimated at $1 billion. Heavily fortified installations in Kuwait have also taken a severe beating, with both these tiny Arab Gulf states being favored targets of IRGC projectiles of late.

In the meantime, with a $1.5 trillion budget battle looming this autumn, the Pentagon is currently urging Congress to approve $68 billion supplemental funding package just to keep the lights on, but as the Iran war drags on with few clear objectives outlining an endgame, defense officials are hitting a wall of bipartisan skepticism among lawmakers.

One D.C. watchdog group, Public Citizen, has stated this week: “The American people are fed up with spending more on bombs and less on basic needs. And they are furious with a pointless, deadly, illegal, unconstitutional and protracted war that is costing lives and driving up gas prices.”

Authored by William Brooks via The Epoch Times,

Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s recent announcement of a “whole-of-government” campaign to challenge the International Criminal Court (ICC) has generated predictable discourse worldwide.

The Trump administration is applying diplomatic pressure on allied governments to reconsider their support for the Court. Washington is calling for expanded sanctions against ICC officials, visa restrictions, and renewed insistence that the Court has no lawful authority over citizens of sovereign nations.

For the usual globalist critics, this is just another example of Trumpian unilateralism. But for sensible Americans, it reflects the president’s determination to place “America First” ahead of international institutions.

In fact, the issue deserves thoughtful examination that goes beyond ideological rhetoric. At its heart lies one of the oldest questions in constitutional government: Who has the ultimate authority to judge the citizens of a sovereign nation—its own national institutions, or an international tribunal whose judges are beyond the reach of that nation’s electorate?

The answer explains why every American administration since the ICC’s creation has refused to recognize the Court’s jurisdiction over American servicemen and government officials.

The International Criminal Court was established under the Rome Statute in 1998 and formally began operations in 2002. It was created with an admirable purpose: to prosecute individuals responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and, more recently, the crime of aggression when national courts either cannot or will not act.

The horrors of Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia convinced many that the “international order” needed a permanent institution capable of bringing the world’s worst criminals to justice. Few people disputed that objective.

Since World War II, the United States has played a significant role in shaping modern international criminal law. From the Nuremberg trials to the creation of temporary tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, successive American governments have supported the prosecution of genuine war criminals.

What Washington has never accepted is the proposition that an international court may exercise criminal jurisdiction over American citizens without the United States’ consent.

Global Overreach

Bill Clinton authorized the signing of the Rome Statute during the final days of his administration, but he deliberately declined to submit it to the Senate for ratification, acknowledging significant constitutional concerns.

George W. Bush later informed the United Nations that the United States did not intend to become a party to the treaty. Congress reinforced that position through the American Service-Members’ Protection Act of 2002, declaring that American military personnel should never be surrendered to the ICC without U.S. consent.

Subsequent administrations differed in tone but not in principle. Barack Obama cooperated with the Court in certain cases involving foreign atrocities while continuing to reject its jurisdiction over Americans.

Joe Biden lifted some sanctions imposed during Donald Trump’s first term but tacitly maintained that the ICC possessed no lawful authority over U.S. personnel. The American constitutional objection has remained remarkably consistent across the partisan divide.

The present controversy over the court’s power arose from the ICC’s contention that if an alleged offense occurs within the territory of a country that has ratified the Rome Statute, the Court may prosecute even citizens of countries that have never accepted its jurisdiction.

The Court’s reasoning formed the basis for investigations involving American personnel in Afghanistan and has also underpinned recent proceedings involving Israeli leaders. Sovereign nations are right to see this as global overreach.

America in Opposition

History offers good reasons for American concern. International organizations, such as the United Nations, are not immune from politicization. Their legitimacy depends not only upon noble aspirations but also upon public confidence that they exercise their authority impartially and within clearly defined legal limits.

Whenever global institutions expand their jurisdiction beyond what states originally contemplated, they inevitably invite resistance.

This concern echoes an argument made 50 years ago by the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. In his influential 1975 book “A Dangerous Place” and in articles and speeches during his tenure as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Moynihan argued that the United States had entered an era of permanent “opposition” within international institutions.

He believed that organizations originally established to foster cooperation had increasingly become grievance forums for a multinational majority of former European colonies that were determined to disparage the United States and its longstanding allies.

Moynihan did not reject international cooperation; quite the opposite. He believed that international institutions were valuable—but only when they respected truth, legal restraint, and the sovereign equality of nations. When those institutions exceeded their proper authority or became instruments of political activism, he believed democratic governments had both the right and the obligation to resist.

Half a century later, Moynihan’s warning is remarkably relevant. The present dispute is not just about whether war crimes should be prosecuted. Every civilized nation supports bringing genuine perpetrators of genocide and crimes against humanity to justice.

The real question is whether or not an international court has an independent right to define the limits of its own authority.

Washington Rejects the ICC’s Jurisdiction

American constitutional tradition holds that treaties bind only those nations that freely consent to them. The Senate never ratified the Rome Statute. Consequently, successive administrations have maintained that no international body can acquire criminal jurisdiction over Americans through the unilateral decisions of other governments.

This is not merely a legal technicality. It goes to the heart of democratic accountability. American judges answer to constitutional procedures established by the American people. Congress writes the laws. Presidents appoint judges under constitutional safeguards. Elections provide ultimate political accountability.

The judges of the International Criminal Court answer to no American electorate. American citizens cannot vote them out of office, alter their mandate, or amend the Rome Statute under which they operate. This exempts the Court from democratic accountability and permits it to exercise extraordinary powers over individuals who never consented to its authority. Within this order of things, Americans are as inclined to trust the impartiality of international judges as they are to trust the neutrality of international soccer referees.

Washington’s position is not unique. Other major democracies, including India, have also declined to join the Court. The objections vary, but many share the concern that international institutions should not gradually acquire powers that sovereign governments never delegated. Dismissing concerns about sovereignty as ultra-America-first nationalism diminishes the importance of an issue that has occupied constitutional scholars for decades.

That is a profound constitutional issue. In spite of the usual virtue signaling and anti-American theater, there is a principle at stake that has united every U.S. administration for more than a quarter century. The United States never consented to place its citizens under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

Whether one agrees with Rubio’s assertion or not, it is hardly an extremist position. It reflects a long-standing understanding of constitutional government—that the legitimacy of law rests ultimately upon the consent of the governed. This is not just another battle in the culture wars or more evidence of presidential brinkmanship—it’s an issue that deserves to be taken seriously.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

By Diana DiGangi of UtilityDive

Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s office, Meta, Google, Amazon, Microsoft and others weighed in on Dominion Energy’s proposal for allocating the cost of transmission projects driven by data center development at a hearing held by the Virginia State Corporation Commission on Tuesday.

Louise White, Spanberger’s deputy energy officer, said that the governor’s office wants the SCC to apply three solutions in the case: a “but for” cost causation standard; requiring transmission level-contributions in aid of construction, or CIAC, payments; and transitioning to the summer/winter peak and average cost allocation method.

Attorney and lobbyist Will Cleveland testified on behalf of Google that Dominion only recently completed its shift to a 12 coincident peak demands allocation factor, and its new GS-5 rate class for large loads hasn’t yet gone into full effect, saying it’s “simply too early in the process” to know whether these changes alone might fairly reallocate the data center cost burden.

The SCC’s hearing concerns Dominion’s proposed change to its Rider T-1, a line-item charge allocated to cost recovery for transmission investments, which the utility seeks to increase in order to recover around $1.5 billion in transmission costs. Dominion originally estimated that the average residential ratepayer’s bill would increase by around $2.90 a month as a result but lowered that estimate to $0.94 a month based on updated forecasting.

Cleveland said that SCC’s final order in Dominion’s 2025 rate case approved large load provisions like the creation of the GS-5 rate class, with cost shifting as the provisions’ “entire premise … Why is that not sufficient?” He asked the SCC to direct Dominion to revise its line extension policy to allow for voluntary CIAC payments, which he called a “win-win.” 

Andrew Major, an SCC attorney testifying on behalf of commission staff, said that if the commission chooses to adopt a methodology other than 12CP, staff “recommends transitioning over a multi-year period in order to facilitate gradualism and cost responsibility.”

“However, regardless of the cost allocation methodology that is chosen, there remains a glaring cross-class subsidization occurring to the benefit of new GS-5 customers,” Major said. He noted that Google, Amazon, Microsoft and Meta signed a ratepayer protection pledge at the White House in March, adding, “Curiously, none of those companies mentioned this pledge in either pre-filed testimony or opening statements today.”

The SCC continued to hear arguments on Wednesday, and must issue a decision in the case by Aug. 1.

In testimony filed June 11, Amazon witness Cameron Brooks also requested the adoption of voluntary CIAC payments “as a way to reduce ratepayer burden,” saying this would make “the customer’s financial responsibility for the identified facilities … clear, enforceable, and integral to mitigating subsidization and stranded cost risks.”

Jonathan Zader, senior assistant county attorney for Loudoun County — where the bulk of Virginia’s data centers are being developed — testified that “the stakes are particularly high” for Loudoun County, which requests cost recovery under Rider T-1 include direct allocation and CIAC payments for upgrades that are “but for” caused by interconnecting large load customers.

Methodology arguments

Michael Goggin, of Grid Strategies, testified on behalf of Appalachian Voices that concerns about stranded asset risk — enabled by what Brooks called the “socialization of speculative investment” from data center developers — is driving advocacy for CIAC payments as well as direct assignment, which allocates the cost of upgrades directly to the customer or rate class they’re serving.

But Goggin argued that “direct assignment only helps address part of the problem here. Dominion is still far too reliant on supplemental projects and needs to be directed to utilize the PJM regional competitive transmission planning process for the bulk of its transmission investment, so that we can reduce costs for all ratepayers,” he said.

John Farmer, section chief of the insurance and utilities regulatory section within the office of consumer counsel at the Virginia Attorney General’s Office, said the consumer council office “generally supports direct assignment conceptually when it is possible to identify a cost causer,” and “believes that the situations in which we may be able to identify a specific cost causer are growing.”

“But unlike allocating costs among the different classes, something this commission has done with regularity for many many years, there are uncertainties when it comes to the direct assignment of transmission costs that may warrant additional analysis,” Farmer said. For instance, he said, additional analysis on the relative merits of direct assignment to specific customers versus direct assignment to the overall GS-5 rate class “could be helpful.”

Farmer also said that the summer and winter peak average methodology of calculating cost, or an average and excess methodology used alongside 12CP, could be “reasonable alternatives” to the current 12CP methodology.

“Consumer Council does not find [Dominion’s] counterarguments to testimony recommending the SWPA method, in particular, to be persuasive, and expects the evidence that will come before this commission will support a movement to that methodology,” he said.

Dominion uses SWPA for cost-of-service studies and rate structures in North Carolina, but Dominion regulatory analyst Robert Miller said the company “believes that 12CP is the more appropriate allocation methodology for the companies for the Virginia jurisdiction.”

Miller reasoned that Dominion has a much smaller service territory in North Carolina, and he is not aware of any new high load factor customers in that area. He said that 12CP is a preferable methodology for use in Virginia, but agreed with Southern Environmental Law Center senior attorney Nate Benforado that SWPA “is in the zone of reasonableness.”

President Donald Trump on Thursday said that US TV networks that refused to air his primetime address on election integrity should have their licenses revoked. 

During the address, Trump said that both NBC and ABC News said they “would not cover the speech” – something he called a “rare move.” 

“They knew what it was about because of the fact that they don’t like the topic, because they know how corrupt our system is, and they don’t want to reveal it,” he said, adding “Fraud like this should mean a revocation of their licenses. They use our public, multi-billion-dollar in value airwaves for absolutely no money. They pay nothing. All we want is honesty in our elections and honesty in reporting.“

ABC News said on Thursday that they would run the speech – but only on their live streaming platform and ABC News Radio – but not on its broadcast channel. NBC News also aired the speech on its streaming platform. 

As the Epoch Times notes further, Trump announced the declassification of information that he said reveals large-scale Chinese hacking of American voter information, saying that China obtained 220 million voter records during the 2020 election.

The president also detailed the findings of a Homeland Security Department review that found 278,000 noncitizens were registered to vote in federal elections. Trump said he had ordered the agency to notify states and direct them to remove all ineligible voters from their voter rolls.

White House communications director Steven Cheung called out NBC and ABC News for not airing the president’s address and encouraged viewers to watch it on the White House’s platform instead.

“NBC and ABC don’t want you to hear the truth. All they want to do is hide the facts from YOU. Tune in @WhiteHouse at 9:00pm EDT, where we always get bigger ratings than any of the networks,” Cheung said in a post on X.

Trump had previously called for the broadcast licenses of ABC News and NBC to be revoked over what he described as “unfair coverage of Republicans and/or Conservatives.” He also accused the networks of being “an arm of the Democrat Party.”

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in April ordered an early review of license renewals for eight Disney-owned ABC television stations. The FCC was also looking into whether ABC’s daytime talk ​show “The View” violated federal rules requiring broadcast stations to provide equal airtime to all political party candidates.

Via The Libertarian Institute

The US Embassy in Lebanon announced that the State Department is offering grants of up to $250,000 to groups that help promote American propaganda. 

“The US Embassy in Beirut is opening a new Notice of Funding Opportunity for 2026,” a statement published this week explained. “We’re looking for partners to implement programs that strengthen ties between the US and Lebanon, with a focus on highlighting US-led peace and stabilization efforts, and advancing digital literacy to help people identify and push back on false, adversarial narratives.“

The State Department website says the program is expected to award $500,000 to at least two groups to promote US propaganda in Lebanon.

It adds that the program’s goal is to “strengthen local public understanding of US-led peace and stabilization efforts, and its role as a partner committed to security, economic opportunity, and responsible regional leadership.”

Washington is attempting to broker a peace agreement between Tel Aviv and Beirut. However, Israel is at war with Hezbollah, a non-state military that operates outside of the control of the Lebanese government. 

While Beirut and Tel Aviv inked a deal last month, Hezbollah rejected the agreement because it allowed the IDF to occupy Lebanon until the militia is dismantled. 

According to some of the latest from The Associated Press:

After two days of U.S.-mediated talks in Rome, Lebanon and Israel took steps toward implementing “pilot zones” in southern Lebanon where Israeli forces would withdraw and turn over control to the Lebanese army, the U.S. State Department said Wednesday.

The latest Israel-Hezbollah war began when the Lebanese militant group fired rockets into Israel days after Israel and the U.S. launched their war on Iran on Feb. 28. Israel invaded Lebanon and has since occupied a large swathe of the country’s south. Hezbollah has been vehemently opposed to the direct Lebanon-Israel talks.

The attempt to negotiate a peace agreement between Tel Aviv and Beirut is making it more difficult for President Donald Trump to end the war against Iran.

🇮🇱🇱🇧 Reports claim the Israeli army is actively paving roads and modifying routes inside the occupied town of Odeisseh, Lebanon

That’s despite an agreement with the Lebanese Government where they promise to pull out of Lebanon, eventually…

Source: BintJbeilNews/Writer: Samuel pic.twitter.com/u6R8FgLk1e

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) July 17, 2026

Iran has linked any ceasefire and peace agreement with Israel ending its war against Lebanon – but Israel has rejected this effort to link the two conflict threatres. 

By Ethan Howland of UtilityDive

The PJM Interconnection’s just-held capacity auction cleared nearly 7 GW below its reliability target and only drew roughly 500 MW of new power supply, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chairman Laura Swett said Thursday.

“These numbers compound the alarm bells for a call to action in PJM,” Swett said during the agency’s monthly meeting. “Am I surprised that PJM failed to deliver? No, I am not,” Swett said later during a media briefing.

However, FERC isn’t trying to “target” PJM, she said.

“This is a problem that involves people at the federal level, at the market level, the state level, the registered entities, the market participants … all the utilities, the companies there,” Swett said. “This is a very complex issue that everyone has to coalesce around, coming up with a solution.”

FERC aims to address some of the problems at a technical conference on July 23 focused on PJM’s governance issues.

“The current stakeholder process in PJM is slow where it must be fast, opaque where it must be transparent, and vulnerable to vetoes and agenda control exactly when the region needs immediate action,” Swett said.

From the conference, FERC expects to get “ideas on paper, on a record,” Swett said. “I am very optimistic that certain proposals will be front runners that are grounded in the record that we collect next week, so that there should be a more clear path forward for PJM after that.”

FERC Commissioner Lindsay See also highlighted the need for reforms at PJM, the nation’s largest grid operator, serving 67 million people in the Mid-Atlantic and Midwest regions.

“PJM has to be able to get reforms across the finish line in a timely and transparent way,” See said. “Part of that also includes the need for a governance structure that can not only deliver concrete results but that can give parties the type of confidence in those reforms that’s necessary to drive investment where and when it’s needed.”

Last week, FERC Commissioner David LaCerte said the status quo at PJM was “untenable.”

Here are five other takeaways from FERC’s meeting.

Data center reliability standards

FERC set deadlines for the North American Electric Reliability Corp. to develop reliability standards for computational loads — data centers and crypto-mining operations — and the rules for registering those loads by Dec. 31. The grid watchdog is already developing those standards and rules.

FERC also directed NERC to file by March 1 a plan detailing the next steps in its standards development process for computational loads.

“I applaud NERC’s proactive efforts on these matters,” Swett said. FERC set the deadlines because “they are a great mechanism for producing results,” she said.

As part of its Large Loads Action Plan, NERC expects to issue the proposed reliability standards and draft registry criteria for public comment in August, it said Thursday.

FERC orders CAISO, SPP Western seams report

FERC ordered the California Independent System Operator and the Southwest Power Pool to file a report by Sept. 30 on how they plan to manage the seams between their markets and neighboring balancing authority areas in the West. The CAISO-run Extended Day-Ahead Market started operating in May. SPP expanded its footprint into the Western Interconnection in April, and its Markets+ initiative is expected to go live in October 2027. 

“While the increased deployment of organized markets is intended to bring substantial reliability and economic benefits to the West, the resulting seams create reliability, operational, and market efficiency hurdles that warrant proactive attention,” FERC said.

Earlier this month, CAISO President and CEO Elliot Mainzer said the grid operator was working with SPP to develop a joint operating agreement before Markets+ begins operating.

Complaint over PSE&G cost recovery advances

FERC advanced a complaint over Public Service Electric and Gas Co.’s cost recovery of a $546 million transmission project it built in New Jersey. The agency ordered an administrative law judge to conduct hearings on Public Citizen’s January complaint alleging that the costs were imprudently incurred.

In December 2024, PSE&G agreed to pay a $6.6 million fine to settle a FERC enforcement office investigation into the utility’s justifications to PJM for building the Roseland-Pleasant Valley transmission project.

FERC rejects complaint over Duke transmission rates

FERC rejected a complaint that sought to stop Duke Energy Progress from including the costs of four transmission lines that could benefit solar developers into its overall transmission rates. 

The agency dismissed arguments made by North Carolina Electric Membership Corp. in its complaint, saying, “Rolled-in rate treatment for the costs of the four … projects is consistent with longstanding Commission precedent that favors rolled-in rate treatment for integrated transmission facilities.”

FERC eyes changes to ‘hypothetical capital structure’ incentive

FERC approved a 50/50 hypothetical debt to equity capital structure for two transmission projects that Basin Electric Power Cooperative plans to build in North Dakota for about $469.3 million. FERC offers hypothetical capital structures as an incentive for transmission development.

“They can help new transmission companies secure financing for large projects and allow developers to move forward even when their actual capital structure may not yet reflect a project’s long-term financial profile,” Swett said. 

However, FERC is considering changes to the incentive, which increases consumer costs, Swett said at the agency’s meeting.

“This is a very complex topic with significant implications for financing, project development, regional planning, and customer affordability. Even small changes to utilities’ return can have significant impacts,” she said. “I am confident that working with my colleagues, we can get that balance right and ensure that our policies promote needed transmission investment while protecting consumers.”