Public Record Service

Energy and permitting policy, read from the public record.

Register entry No. 0034ReportDocket No. CP26-11-000; 91 FR 1306

Columbia Gulf files Clark Project for EKPC's J.K. Smith station, Docket No. CP27-9-000, seeking rolled-in rates

The 8.68-mile Kentucky lateral is Columbia Gulf's third application in about a year to deliver firm gas to an East Kentucky Power Cooperative plant. Unlike the 42-mile Maysville Project, it asks FERC to price service at existing system rates. Interventions are due November 24.

Entered by
Public Record Service
Date
Sources
11 cited

Summary

Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC filed an application on October 20, 2026 under section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act for the Clark Project, an 8.68-mile, 30-inch pipeline in Estill and Clark Counties, Kentucky, that would carry about 250,000 dekatherms per day of firm transportation service to East Kentucky Power Cooperative’s existing J.K. Smith generating plant [1]. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission noticed the application in Docket No. CP27-9-000 on November 6 and set November 24 as the deadline to intervene [1]. It is the third Columbia Gulf certificate application in about a year for a lateral serving an EKPC plant, after the Pulaski Project for the John S. Cooper station and the Maysville Project for the Hugh L. Spurlock station [1, 2, 3].

What the record shows

The rate request separates the Clark filing from its predecessors. For Maysville, Columbia Gulf proposed “a monthly initial incremental recourse rate for firm transportation service,” which would bill the new capacity on its own cost basis [3]. For Clark, it “proposes to apply the existing FTS-1 base system recourse reservation and commodity rates for the Project and requests a predetermination of rolled-in rate treatment” [1]. A predetermination is an advance ruling, made in the certificate proceeding, that the project’s costs may later be folded into the rates the pipeline charges across its system. The notice does not reproduce Columbia Gulf’s argument for that treatment [1].

The project has three parts, according to the Commission’s notice [1]:

  • about 8.68 miles of new 30-inch-diameter greenfield pipeline;
  • an aboveground tie-in to Columbia Gulf’s existing mainline, with a new launcher/receiver assembly;
  • an aboveground meter station with a launcher/receiver assembly.

Columbia Gulf puts the total cost at $95,204,268 [1]. It also told the Commission that a water quality certificate under section 401 of the Clean Water Act is required from the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet’s Department of Environmental Protection; the notice directs the company to file its request and either the state’s decision or evidence of waiver [1].

How the three EKPC laterals compare

Project Docket Filed EKPC plant Pipeline Stated volume Estimated cost Rate proposal
Pulaski CP26-11-000 Oct. 15, 2025 John S. Cooper, Pulaski Co. 41.3 miles, 30-inch 253 MMscf/d [2, 4]; 260,000 Dth/d [6] Not stated in notices cited Not stated in notices cited
Maysville CP26-25-000 Nov. 17, 2025 Hugh L. Spurlock, Mason Co. about 42 miles, 30-inch up to 340,000 Dth/d $402 million Incremental recourse rate
Clark CP27-9-000 Oct. 20, 2026 J.K. Smith, Clark Co. about 8.68 miles, 30-inch about 250,000 Dth/d $95,204,268 Existing FTS-1 rates, rolled-in

Filing dates and Pulaski facts come from the schedule and scoping notices in that docket [2, 4]; Maysville figures come from its application notice [3]; Clark figures come from the November 6 notice [1]. In its Pulaski scoping notice, Commission staff wrote that, according to the company, the project “would service its new and existing generation resources” [2]. Pipeline & Gas Journal identifies Columbia Gulf as a subsidiary of TC Energy [11].

What generation sits at the three sites?

The Kentucky Public Service Commission’s staff report on EKPC’s 2025 Integrated Resource Plan, entered June 1, 2026 in Case No. 2025-00087, lists J.K. Smith as “Natural gas/fuel oil fired generation” with nine combustion turbines totaling 753 MW of summer capacity and 989 MW of winter capacity [8]. Cooper has two pulverized coal units totaling 341 MW, and Spurlock has four coal units totaling 1,346 MW [8].

The same report says EKPC has state certificates for a 745 MW natural gas combined cycle unit at Cooper Station, along with “natural gas co-fire conversion” of Spurlock Units 1 through 4 and Cooper Unit 2 [8]. That matches the plant list of the two earlier laterals: Pulaski serves Cooper and Maysville serves Spurlock [6, 7].

Where it sits in the process

The Clark notice starts the Commission’s clock under 18 CFR 157.9. Within 90 days, staff will either place a completed environmental review in the record or issue a notice of schedule for environmental review naming the date for a final environmental impact statement or environmental assessment [1]. Comments, protests and motions to intervene are due by 5:00 p.m. Eastern on November 24, 2026 [1].

The two earlier dockets show what that schedule has looked like for this applicant. In Pulaski, staff set June 22, 2026 for the environmental assessment and September 20, 2026 as the 90-day deadline for other federal authorizations [4]. The assessment’s notice of availability, dated June 22, found the project would not be “a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment,” with comments due July 22 [6]. In Maysville, staff scheduled the assessment for August 11, 2026 and the authorization deadline for November 9, 2026, which is today [5]. That assessment reached the same finding, with comments due September 10 [7].

Under 18 CFR 157.22(a), as the schedule notices describe it, the deadline binds other federal agencies and state agencies acting under delegated federal authority, unless federal law sets a different schedule [5]. An environmental assessment “is not a decision document,” the Maysville notice says; the Commission bases its decisions on “both economic issues, including need, and environmental effects” [7].

TC Energy’s Pulaski project page lists an anticipated FERC notice to proceed in the first quarter of 2027, main pipeline construction starting in the first quarter of 2028, and expected in-service in the first quarter of 2029, all labeled as estimates subject to change [10].

What the record does not show

The Clark notice does not say whether the 250,000 dekatherms per day would serve the existing nine turbines at J.K. Smith, new units, or both [1]. The staff report’s list of EKPC’s certificated generation projects names no new combustion turbine or combined cycle unit at J.K. Smith [8].

In a separate case, EKPC filed a notice of intent on December 30, 2025 for a certificate “to construct new generation resources” and then moved on March 19, 2026 to close it, citing Winter Storm Fern and “other numerous circumstances” that led it to reconsider “the timing and placement of the planned new generation” [9]. The Commission closed Case No. 2025-00415 on May 5, 2026 [9]. Its order does not name a site [9].

The notices cited here do not show a Commission certificate order in the Pulaski or Maysville dockets, nor an in-service date requested for Clark [1, 6, 7]. Whether the Commission grants the rolled-in predetermination, and how it weighs any effect on Columbia Gulf’s existing FTS-1 shippers, is left to the certificate order [1].

Positions on the record

The intervention period in Docket No. CP27-9-000 runs through November 24, and no filings by parties appear in the record cited here [1].

On EKPC’s broader shift toward gas, positions are on file at the Kentucky commission. Sierra Club urged the commission to reject the 2025 resource plan over its “lack of exploration of other alternatives at the Company’s coal units and other replacement alternatives” to the Cooper combined cycle plant, and argued that EKPC understated the costs of gas-fueled generation and overstated battery storage costs [8]. Sierra Club also said EKPC should have modeled full gas conversion or retirement of coal units [8].

EKPC answered that it did not model full conversion because that “would put EKPC in full reliance on natural gas suppliers and eliminate the ability to hedge exposure to gas price increases,” according to the staff report’s summary [8]. It said battery storage was modeled but not selected [8]. The Attorney General, by the report’s account, appeared to approve of EKPC’s balance between dispatchable resources and renewables and raised concerns about the effect of federal policy changes on reliability and cost [8].

Reading-room questions

Questions readers bring to this record, answered from the documents cited below.

When is the deadline to intervene in the Columbia Gulf Clark Project?
5:00 p.m. Eastern on November 24, 2026, in FERC Docket No. CP27-9-000 [1]. Only intervenors can seek rehearing of a Commission order and then take it to a federal court of appeals [1].
Where would the Clark Project pipeline be built?
In Estill and Clark Counties, Kentucky: about 8.68 miles of new 30-inch pipeline, a tie-in to Columbia Gulf's mainline and a meter station [1]. It would deliver about 250,000 dekatherms per day of firm service to East Kentucky Power Cooperative's J.K. Smith plant [1].
How much would the Clark Project cost and who would pay?
Columbia Gulf estimates $95,204,268 [1]. It proposes to charge its existing FTS-1 system rates and has asked FERC for an advance ruling that the cost may be rolled into system rates, rather than billed through a separate incremental rate as proposed for the Maysville Project [1, 3].
Does the Clark Project need a state water permit?
Yes. Columbia Gulf told FERC it needs a Clean Water Act section 401 water quality certificate from the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet's Department of Environmental Protection [1].
What is the J.K. Smith station?
An East Kentucky Power Cooperative plant in Clark County with nine combustion turbines that burn natural gas or fuel oil, totaling 753 MW of summer and 989 MW of winter capacity, according to Kentucky regulators [8].

Note on sourcing

This report draws on the Commission's notice of the Clark Project application, not the application itself; Columbia Gulf's stated justification for rolled-in rates, the delivery volume's relation to any specific generating units, and the in-service date it requests are not described here. The record cited does not include a Commission certificate order on the Pulaski Project (Docket No. CP26-11-000) or the Maysville Project (Docket No. CP26-25-000); an order may have issued that this report does not reflect. The Pulaski volume appears as 253 million standard cubic feet per day in two Commission notices and as 260,000 dekatherms per day in a third; the figures use different units and are reported as each notice states them. TC Energy's Pulaski construction and in-service dates are the company's estimates, which it says are subject to change. The Kentucky Public Service Commission's May 5, 2026 order does not say where EKPC had planned to build the generation it withdrew. No filings by intervenors in Docket No. CP27-9-000 appear in the record cited here.

Sources

  1. Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC; Notice of Application and Establishing Intervention Deadline, Docket No. CP27-9-000, 91 FR 70082 (FR Doc. 2026-22722)Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, November 6, 2026 · govinfo.gov
  2. Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC; Notice of Scoping Period Requesting Comments on Environmental Issues for the Proposed Pulaski Project, and Notice of Public Scoping Session, Docket No. CP26-11-000, 90 FR 54665 (FR Doc. 2025-21487)Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, November 28, 2025 · govinfo.gov
  3. Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC; Notice of Application and Establishing Intervention Deadline, Docket No. CP26-25-000, 90 FR 55308 (FR Doc. 2025-21757)Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, December 2, 2025 · govinfo.gov
  4. Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC; Notice of Schedule for the Preparation of an Environmental Assessment for the Pulaski Project, Docket No. CP26-11-000, 91 FR 1306 (FR Doc. 2026-00405)Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, January 13, 2026 · govinfo.gov
  5. Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC; Notice of Schedule for the Preparation of an Environmental Assessment for the Maysville Project, Docket No. CP26-25-000, 91 FR 2338 (FR Doc. 2026-00985)Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, January 20, 2026 · govinfo.gov
  6. Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC; Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Pulaski Project, Docket No. CP26-11-000, 91 FR 38414 (FR Doc. 2026-12853)Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, June 25, 2026 · govinfo.gov
  7. Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC; Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Maysville Project, Docket No. CP26-25-000, 91 FR 52685 (FR Doc. 2026-16633)Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, August 14, 2026 · govinfo.gov
  8. Order and Commission Staff's Report on the 2025 Integrated Resource Plan of East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc., Case No. 2025-00087Kentucky Public Service Commission, June 1, 2026 · psc.ky.gov
  9. Order, Case No. 2025-00415 (East Kentucky Power Cooperative application for a CPCN to construct new generation resources)Kentucky Public Service Commission, May 5, 2026 · psc.ky.gov
  10. Pulaski ProjectTC Energy, accessed 2026-11-09 · tcenergy.com
  11. Columbia Gulf's 42-Mile Kentucky Maysville Gas Pipeline Enters FERC ReviewPipeline & Gas Journal, January 20, 2026 · pgjonline.com

Subject headings

Cross-references

Other register entries filed under the same subject headings.

  1. No. 0017 · Report · 2 shared headingsNGPL and Horizon file North Extension Project for Wisconsin Electric gas supply, Docket No. CP26-564-000
  2. No. 0013 · Environmental review · 2 shared headingsFERC staff issues environmental assessment for Mountain Valley Pipeline Boost compression project, Docket CP26-14-000
  3. No. 0033 · Data release · 1 shared headingNERC petitions FERC to register 50-MW data centers, Docket No. RR27-1-000; comments due Nov. 20