Energy Law: Month in Review - May 2026
May 2026 energy-law updates: Michigan’s Court of Appeals largely upheld MPSC renewable siting rules but ordered revisions on “affected local unit” and local-approval timing. Connecticut’s Supreme Court remanded Eversource’s $17M storm-cost recovery dispute. Pennsylvania, Oregon, and Wisconsin PUCs approved large-load/data-center tariff frameworks shifting upgrade costs to customers. New York PSC approved major transmission rebuilds and an Article VII amendment. FERC’s XBRL-CSV EQR standard took
Regulatory approval governs the economics/terms of Meta’s Wisconsin data center service, including customer-borne infrastructure costs and minimum demand payments.
Wisconsin PSC approved Alliant’s modified agreement to serve a Meta data center campus and directed a stand-alone large-load tariff for future customers.
Neutral-to-slightly positive for project certainty; material impact depends on final contract economics and any customer exit/termination terms.
Background
This “month in review” compiles state appellate/court decisions and PUC/FERC regulatory actions affecting permitting, tariff design for large loads (notably data centers), storm-cost recovery, and transmission approvals.
Why it matters
Net effect is increased regulatory clarity on who pays for large-load infrastructure and more defined transmission buildout pathways; however, at least one major dispute is remanded for further interpretation, keeping uncertainty alive.
Market relevance
For traders, the most actionable items are direct regulatory approvals affecting utility tariff economics (PGE, Alliant/NG) and a remand that can reopen timing of storm-cost recovery (Eversource).
Market effects
Reinforces a broader US regulatory trend: cost-causation and dedicated rate classes for large-load/data-center customers, plus tighter interconnection timelines.
May shift expectations for utility capex and rate design in Michigan, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Wisconsin, and New York.
Low; largely US state/regulatory and FERC procedural items with localized utility impacts.
Alternative perspectives
Court remand outcomes (e.g., Eversource) can swing either way, so near-term trading may overreact to the headline without knowing the eventual settlement/interpretation.
Tariff approvals’ financial impact depends on (1) final contract terms, (2) interconnection study outcomes, (3) timing of construction/in-service, and (4) whether regulators allow the specific cost categories to be recovered as modeled.
Key entities
- regulatorMichigan Public Service Commission
Implementing rules for renewable energy siting under Public Act 233 of 2023; partially narrowed on remand.
- companyEversource Energy
Subject of Connecticut storm-cost recovery dispute remanded by the state Supreme Court.
- regulatorPennsylvania Public Utility Commission
Adopted a large-load model tariff framework for electric distribution companies serving >50MW loads.
- companyPortland General Electric
Approved large-load tariff framework (Schedule 96) implementing Oregon’s 2025 POWER Act.
- companyAlliant Energy
Wisconsin PSC approved modified agreement for a Meta data center and directed a stand-alone large-load tariff.
