Require transmission planning regions to jointly plan with adjacent regions, submit joint transmission plans to FERC, identify relevant facilities, and use cost allocation methods that charge customers receiving transmission benefits.

George Latimer · New York · Democratic

policy impact 0.68 specificity 0.86 extraction confidence 87%

Commitment kind: action. Promised action: Require transmission planning regions to jointly plan with adjacent regions and submit joint transmission plans to FERC.. Promised outcome: More coordinated regional and interregional transmission planning with cost allocation tied to customers receiving transmission benefits.. Deadline: unknown; not assumed expired. Contained in H.R. 10539, introduced in the House with Latimer listed as an original cosponsor.

Contest this claim

Occurrences

“(c) Joint planning .—The final rule issued under subsection (b) shall— “(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

The bill would make adjacent transmission planning regions jointly plan and submit plans to FERC, with related facility identification and cost allocation requirements.

H. R. 10539 (Introduced-in-House)
primary · other · model gpt-5.5

Evidence

unverified · Source version 81231 · locator unknown

September 24, 2026 Mr. Casten (for himself, Ms. Castor of Florida, Mr. Levin, Mr. McGovern, and Mr. Latimer) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

Unverified model/legacy excerpt; not proof. AI summary (separate from source): Within the lookback window, Latimer was an original cosponsor of H.R. 10539, a House bill referred to committee; this is concrete effort but not enactment.

unresolved same_term A for effort

H. R. 10539 (Introduced-in-House)
primary · model gpt-5.5 · confidence 93%

Contest this evidence item

verified · Source version 81231 · locator 8079

“(1) require each Transmission Planning Region to jointly plan with each of its immediately adjacent Transmission Planning Regions;

Fetched verbatim passage. AI summary (separate from source): The introduced bill includes the promised requirement for transmission planning regions to jointly plan with adjacent regions, but the bill is still only introduced/referred.

unresolved same_term A for effort

H. R. 10539 (Introduced-in-House)
primary · model gpt-5.5 · confidence 91%

Contest this evidence item

verified · Source version 81231 · locator 8386

“(3) require each Transmission Planning Region to submit to the Commission for approval a joint transmission plan with immediately adjacent Transmission Planning Regions,

Fetched verbatim passage. AI summary (separate from source): The bill text would require joint transmission plans to be submitted to FERC, matching a central part of the commitment, but it has not become law.

unresolved same_term A for effort

H. R. 10539 (Introduced-in-House)
primary · model gpt-5.5 · confidence 90%

Contest this evidence item

verified · Source version 81231 · locator 9098

“(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

Fetched verbatim passage. AI summary (separate from source): The introduced bill contains the promised facility-identification requirement, but this remains a legislative attempt pending further action.

unresolved same_term A for effort

H. R. 10539 (Introduced-in-House)
primary · model gpt-5.5 · confidence 90%

Contest this evidence item

verified · Source version 81231 · locator 9437

“(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.

Fetched verbatim passage. AI summary (separate from source): The bill includes the promised beneficiary-pays cost allocation standard, but no enactment is shown in the official introduced bill record.

unresolved same_term A for effort

H. R. 10539 (Introduced-in-House)
primary · model gpt-5.5 · confidence 90%

Contest this evidence item

unverified · Source version 81247 · locator unknown

Order Nos. 1920 and 1920-A require transmission providers in neighboring regions to modify their existing interregional transmission coordination procedures to align with the long-term planning reforms.

Unverified model/legacy excerpt; not proof. AI summary (separate from source): FERC’s existing Order 1920 framework partially addresses interregional coordination and cost allocation, but it does not prove full delivery of the new statutory joint-plan requirements sought in H.R. 10539.

partial unknown

Explainer on the Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation Final Rule | Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
secondary · model gpt-5.5 · confidence 76%

Contest this evidence item

Assessments

Public state: pending As of 2026-10-05 · verified · . Original AI recommendation (not independently established): unresolved. unknown

The verified commitment and verified passages show H.R. 10539 contains the promised requirements for adjacent-region joint transmission planning, FERC submission of joint plans, facility identification, and beneficiary-based cost allocation. However, the verified evidence only establishes bill text, not enactment or implementation of the promised regulatory outcome by the as-of date. Because introducing or drafting bill language does not fulfill a promise to require/achieve the outcome, and no verified passage establishes Latimer's material contribution or a completed outcome, the claim remains unresolved rather than delivered or partial.

provider codex_cli · model gpt-5.5 · confidence 90%