The Virginia State Corporation Commission issued the order Aug. 5. The action applies to regulated utility transmission arrangements in the Commonwealth and addresses the growing demands that large data centers are placing on the electric grid.

The decision comes as Virginia continues to expand its position as a major data-center hub. The industry’s growth has raised questions about who should pay for new power infrastructure, how fast utilities should build it and whether the costs of serving large projects could affect households and businesses that are not responsible for that demand.

Costs tied to individual facilities

The order requires data centers to cover transmission infrastructure tied exclusively to their facilities. That separates those dedicated project costs from broader grid expenses that may be allocated among a wider group of electricity customers.

The governor’s administration had urged regulators to prevent costs dedicated to data centers from being spread across other ratepayers. The State Corporation Commission, however, is the independent regulator that issued the order.

The decision does not establish that electricity bills will fall statewide. Its significance is in how future infrastructure costs are assigned as data-center electricity demand grows. Virginia residents and businesses could be affected by whether project developers or general ratepayers bear the costs of expanding transmission capacity for new facilities.

The exact dollar amount of infrastructure costs covered by the order and the timetable for implementation were not identified in the public announcements available about the action.

Rapid expansion across Virginia

A July 28 report by VPM News and The Associated Press cited Cleanview tracking that counted 371 operating data centers and 438 planned facilities statewide. The figures show the scale of the development pipeline, but planned facilities are not the same as completed projects and may change as projects are added, delayed or canceled.

That distinction matters for the electric grid. Operating facilities already use power, while planned facilities represent potential future demand that may require additional generation, transmission or other infrastructure. The way those costs are assigned can influence development decisions as well as the bills paid by customers who use less electricity.

Virginia’s affordability and economic agenda also identifies energy development and data-center environmental standards as continuing state priorities. The competing goals are to support economic development while limiting the burden that large industrial projects can place on public infrastructure and natural resources.

Electricity and water pressures

The transmission-cost decision comes alongside concerns about the industry’s effect on water supplies. A separate study of eastern Virginia found that groundwater declines are likely because of population growth and industrial use, and it called for tighter regulation of data-center water use.

The study recommended stronger authority over industrial withdrawal permits and review of alternative water sources. Those recommendations address a different resource from the SCC’s transmission order, but together they show the range of infrastructure and environmental issues associated with data-center expansion.

For Virginia, the immediate regulatory question is how dedicated electricity infrastructure will be paid for. The broader policy question is how the state will manage a fast-growing industry whose demands reach across the electric grid, water systems and affordability debates.

The development could bring major construction activity and permanent employment to the broader southern Ohio economy. It could also increase regional demand for power and water and affect transportation, industrial land use and local business activity. Those effects remain potential outcomes, not confirmed results.

What was announced

Energy Secretary Chris Wright, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum participated in the March 20 announcement, along with officials from SoftBank Group and SB Energy.

The proposed project combines data-center facilities with gas-power generation. The federal announcement also connected the site’s planned work with research or applications involving fusion energy, quantum computing and national-security uses, according to the Associated Press account of the event.

The approximately 10 gigawatts of planned capacity would make this a substantial proposed industrial and technology development for the region. Federal officials said the project is expected to create thousands of jobs, but the available information does not provide a confirmed job count or distinguish how many positions would be temporary construction jobs versus permanent jobs.

Regional project, not a Portsmouth city project

The site is associated with the former Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant near Piketon in Pike County. Portsmouth is in Scioto County, and the plant is not within Portsmouth city limits. The project is therefore best understood as a Portsmouth-area regional development that could affect the city’s labor and service market, rather than as a city project.

That distinction matters for residents, workers, commuters, families and local businesses evaluating what the announcement could mean. The project could generate new regional industrial activity and demand for services, while its potential power, water and transportation requirements could also create infrastructure questions. The source material does not establish the scale of any such effects or identify specific improvements, disruptions or costs.

What is not yet settled

The announcement is not proof that the development will be completed. The available evidence does not establish a final investment decision, construction permit, financing close, exact construction schedule or confirmed job total. Construction has not been established as having begun.

The next stated milestone is the expectation that construction will begin sometime in 2026. No more specific start date or additional project deadline was provided in the approved information. The proposal’s progress, permitting and financing will determine whether that expectation becomes an actual construction start.

The developments point to an intensifying cycle of long-range attacks well beyond the front line. Energy infrastructure is increasingly part of that exchange, exposing civilians and essential services in both countries to the consequences of strikes whose precise damage is not always independently established.

Ukraine links strikes to pressure on Moscow

According to AP, Zelenskyy said Ukraine had hit more Russian oil facilities deep inside the country. AP reported that Ukrainian forces are using long-range drones against targets inside Russia as part of an effort to pressure Moscow toward negotiations.

The available reporting does not identify the precise facilities involved, provide a confirmed damage total or independently verify Ukraine’s claims about the strikes. Those limits matter: the reports establish what Ukraine said happened, but they do not establish that the attacks changed territorial control or the broader military balance.

The reported targets also illustrate the strategic logic behind Ukraine’s campaign. Oil facilities are part of the energy system that supports a country’s economy and military operations. Strikes far from the battlefield can impose pressure and signal reach, but the approved reporting does not quantify their effect on Russian fuel supplies, production or military capability.

Russian barrage around Kyiv killed 17, AP reports

A separate AP report said Russia launched an overnight missile and drone attack on Kyiv and the surrounding region on Aug. 5. The attack killed 17 people and wounded dozens, according to Zelenskyy, whose casualty figures were cited by AP.

AP also reported that Ukrainian air defenses failed to stop any incoming missiles during the overnight attack. The account provides a measure of the immediate danger facing the capital region, but the casualty figures remain attributed to Ukrainian authorities rather than independently established in the available packet.

The two developments, taken together, show how the war’s threat is being experienced in different ways. Ukraine is reporting offensive drone operations against Russian energy targets, while Russia’s attacks continue to reach population centers and critical infrastructure in Ukraine. Neither report establishes a final change in the conflict’s military balance.

Energy attacks have worsened civilian risks

The United Nations has documented a broader deterioration in civilian safety during the conflict. In a June 29 report, the UN Human Rights Office said systematic and repeated attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure during the 2025-26 winter disrupted essential services and contributed to a more deadly phase of the war.

UN figures show at least 238 civilians were killed and 1,404 injured in Ukraine in April 2026. In May, the UN recorded at least 274 civilian deaths and 1,763 injuries. The figures indicate that the danger to civilians remained severe before the latest reported attack around Kyiv.

For residents, the practical stakes extend beyond the immediate blast area. Damage to energy infrastructure can disrupt essential services, while repeated strikes create continuing risks for households, emergency responders and communities trying to maintain basic operations. The UN’s findings provide broader context for why attacks on energy facilities remain a central humanitarian concern.

What is known about what comes next

Ukraine’s reported use of long-range drones is tied in the AP account to an effort to pressure Russia toward negotiations. The available sources do not, however, identify a formal deadline, a newly announced negotiation round or a confirmed Russian response to the reported strikes.

The immediate development is therefore military rather than diplomatic: Ukraine says it has expanded strikes against Russian oil infrastructure, while Russia’s campaign around Kyiv has produced a reported toll of 17 dead and dozens wounded. Further assessment will depend on independent confirmation of the facilities hit, the damage caused and the effect, if any, on subsequent military or diplomatic decisions.

The meeting is set for 9 a.m. to noon in the Governor’s Reception Room at the Montana State Capitol Building, 1301 E. 6th Ave. in Helena.

Draft materials are available

The Department of Environmental Quality’s task-force page identifies a previous meeting held July 8, 2026, from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. in Helena. That page provides links to the July meeting agenda, a draft report, draft recommendations and a recording.

The posted materials place the task force in the draft stage of its work. The available information does not establish that the recommendations have been adopted as state policy or that they are final.

The task force’s work concerns Montana energy policy and infrastructure, including issues within the energy engineering and technology-policy sphere. Its recommendations could be considered by state policymakers, but the department’s meeting listing does not describe a specific action that will be taken on Aug. 25.

What is known about the next meeting

The Department of Environmental Quality listed the Aug. 25 session as a public task-force meeting at the Capitol. At the time the page was indexed, the meeting’s materials and recording details were marked as to be determined.

That means the currently posted information does not specify an agenda, speakers or whether members will vote on or adopt final recommendations during the Helena session. The precise technical content of the draft recommendations is also not described in the meeting listing.

The Aug. 25 gathering is the next identified public step in the task force’s process. For people following Montana’s electricity-generation, energy-system and related infrastructure discussions, the meeting offers the next scheduled opportunity to track how the draft materials progress.

However, the public listing alone does not demonstrate a completed technology deployment, a measured energy-system result or a direct effect on Helena residents or utility customers. Those outcomes cannot be concluded from the posted meeting notice and July materials links.

Meeting details

When: Tuesday, Aug. 25, 2026, 9 a.m. to noon
Where: Governor’s Reception Room, Montana State Capitol Building, 1301 E. 6th Ave., Helena

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality is the agency maintaining the task-force meeting page and the linked materials from the July 8 session.

Cushing is a city in Payne County, Oklahoma, and serves as the physical delivery point for West Texas Intermediate crude futures. That makes its storage levels important to the city’s oil-centered identity and to the broader market that uses Cushing as a pricing and delivery hub.

What the recent data show

EIA records show commercial crude inventories in Cushing at 18.957 million barrels for the week ending June 19, 19.666 million barrels on June 26, 19.614 million barrels on July 3, 20.044 million barrels on July 10, 19.370 million barrels on July 17 and 18.599 million barrels on July 24.

The figures are weekly commercial inventory estimates. They do not represent a count of crude that is necessarily available to move immediately from every tank or connected facility.

Why “tank bottoms” matter

Storage tanks and connected pipeline equipment generally need a minimum amount of crude to keep pumps and related infrastructure operating. Those minimum volumes are often called “tank bottoms.” If inventory approaches a facility’s minimum operating level, the facility may still contain crude while having less usable working supply than the headline number suggests.

EIA distinguishes between shell capacity—the total volume a facility is designed to hold—and working storage capacity, which accounts for the minimum volume that must remain in the tank and related infrastructure. Under normal operating conditions, storage facilities generally cannot be drawn down to zero.

That does not mean 18.599 million or 19.370 million barrels is an official tank-bottom threshold for every Cushing facility. Minimum levels can vary by tank system and facility.

Why Cushing’s number matters beyond the city

Cushing’s role as the WTI delivery hub means tight physical inventories can affect the relationship between WTI and the international Brent benchmark. EIA said the Brent-WTI differential briefly turned negative during parts of June and July, meaning WTI priced at Cushing moved above Brent during those periods. The agency described the pricing signal as consistent with unusually tight conditions near minimum working levels.

For residents and local businesses, the data confirm that Cushing remains central to the national oil system. They do not, by themselves, prove local job losses, tax changes, business closures, service reductions or utility effects.

What the federal review means

EIA is reviewing results from a pilot study intended to improve understanding of minimum working inventory levels at selected petroleum facilities. The review is not a new Cushing-specific storage limit, an order to operators or a completed rule.

The practical issue to watch is whether Cushing inventories rebuild a larger operating cushion in the coming weeks. Until then, the evidence supports careful monitoring of the hub’s weekly numbers and market signals—not a claim that the city’s tanks are empty or that a confirmed local economic disruption has occurred.

Sources

• EIA: What are tank bottoms?
• Pipeline & Gas Journal

The case is in its public-comment stage. If the court enters a final order, the companies’ obligations would become enforceable. For now, the next concrete step for the public is the August 14, 2026 comment deadline.

In the DOJ filing announced July 10, 2026, DOJ said South Bow (USA) LP and South Bow Infrastructure Operations Inc. agreed to pay a $26,867,789 civil penalty and complete an estimated $40 million in work to prevent future discharges. DOJ also said the companies would pay the State of Kansas $3 million related to natural resource restoration and alleged state-law violations.

What happened in Kansas

DOJ said the rupture leaked nearly 13,000 barrels (about 543,000 gallons) of oil over land and into Mill Creek. DOJ also described the discharge as blanketing creek areas for about 3.5 miles downstream and said a Kansas stream advisory restricted contact with the creek by people, livestock, and pets.

DOJ further said the spill killed or impacted more than 2,700 animals.

What the government is asking the court to approve

This is not a final judgment. It is a proposed consent decree filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. The Federal Register notice also confirms that the publication starts the public comment process, which must run before the court can decide whether to enter a final order.

The proposed decree seeks:

• $26,867,789 in a civil penalty
• Approximately $40 million in injunctive work to strengthen prevention and detection of stress-related failure risk
• Over $3 million for the State of Kansas for natural resource restoration projects and to address related Kansas state-law violations

What “prevention and detection” means in plain English

EPA’s enforcement summary describes the prevention/detection work as steps intended to reduce the likelihood of a similar spill by improving how the operator manages and monitors pipeline integrity risk. Among the categories described:

• Robust procedures, training, and pipeline specifications
• Inspection schedules and operational limits
• Integrity, reliability, and engineering assessments connected to stress/failure prevention and detection

The injunctive relief described by EPA also accounts for corrective actions the companies had already undertaken.

How the public comment window works

EPA’s and DOJ’s announcements, along with the Federal Register notice, show a 30-day comment process. Because the notice was published July 15, 2026, comments are due by August 14, 2026.

After that window closes, the proposed settlement remains subject to court review—so the main “watch next” item is whether the record leads to changes or questions before the court decides on final entry.

Why this matters beyond the Kansas rupture site

Even though the rupture happened in Kansas, the consent decree’s enforceable compliance framework signals how federal regulators are spelling out pipeline integrity, prevention, and monitoring expectations when Clean Water Act discharge risk is alleged.

What to watch next

• Aug. 14, 2026: last day for public comments on the proposed consent decree
• After the comment period: whether the court enters a final order or requests revisions
• If finalized: implementation of the prevention/detection measures (procedures, training, inspection/limits, and integrity/engineering assessments)

Sources

• DOJ press release on the proposed Keystone CWA consent decree (July 10, 2026)
• Federal Register notice opening the public comment period (July 15, 2026)
• EPA enforcement summary with prevention/detection requirements overview

What EPA finalized

EPA’s final rule creates a new NSPS structure (in 40 CFR Part 60, subpart KKKKa) that sets emissions limits for nitrogen oxides (NOx). Under EPA’s framework, it also addresses sulfur dioxide (SO2). The rule is effective January 15, 2026.

EPA also shows a correction dated July 13, 2026 tied to the final rule package. If you are building or updating compliance documentation, use the corrected materials.

Who is covered (and what triggers the new standards)

The standards don’t automatically reach every existing power plant or industrial site. In plain terms, the NSPS applies when a facility has a covered stationary combustion turbine that commenced construction, modification, or reconstruction after December 13, 2024.

The rule also describes an option for some units that were already covered under older subparts to petition to comply using the newer approach.

What changes for NOx: limits depend on the turbine category

EPA sets NOx limits that vary by how the turbine is categorized—based on factors like unit size and operating characteristics. EPA’s fact sheet explains the rule uses size-based subcategories and then distinguishes between units using operating and design thresholds.

EPA says combustion controls are the best system of emission reduction (BSER) for most covered subcategories. For one specific NOx subcategory, EPA’s BSER includes combustion controls plus selective catalytic reduction (SCR).

In practice, this category-based structure means permits and compliance plans may focus on how the project is categorized, what control equipment is proposed (including whether SCR is used), and how performance tests will be documented.

The near-term compliance shift: electronic reporting in 2026–2027

EPA’s rule places major emphasis on electronic submission.

• Beginning March 16, 2026, owners/operators must submit key performance test and CEMS performance evaluation results electronically, within 60 days after the date of completing each performance test or CEMS performance evaluation.
• For semiannual reporting, the rule requires electronic submissions via CEDRI by the 30th day following the end of each 6-month period.
• Semiannual reporting begins January 15, 2027, with timing also tied to when report templates for the subpart are available on EPA’s CEDRI website.

The systems involved include CEDRI for compliance reporting submissions and the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) for generating electronic files connected to performance testing documentation.

Reader impact: permits, documentation, and uneven timing by project

For communities near covered facilities and for energy consumers, the rule matters most through what it changes for new, modified, or reconstructed turbine projects: the equipment decisions that support NOx compliance and the administrative workflow for compliance evidence.

Because the standards hinge on whether construction/modification/reconstruction occurred after December 13, 2024, effects will be uneven across regions and plants—showing up primarily where projects are moving forward under the new trigger and where air agencies update permit conditions and reporting schedules accordingly.

Sources

• EPA NSPS hub page: Stationary Gas and Combustion Turbines (Final Rule)
• Federal Register (EPA final NSPS): “New Source Performance Standards Review for Stationary Combustion Turbines and Stationary Gas Turbines” (Jan. 15, 2026; FR-2026-01-15, PDF 2026-00677)

This public visualization is built to help readers explore study results—not to function as a project approval list. (Think of it as a way to ask better questions about why certain transmission paths show up as higher or lower “value” in modeling.)

What this tool is (and what it pulls from)

LBNL describes the Stage 1 tool as an exploration of the data and results from two studies: one published in Nature Communications and another report supporting the National Transmission Needs Study. In the tool, the studies use equivalent methods, but they analyze different sets of transmission links (the maps shown in the visualization).

What “links” means in the visualization

In this tool, a “link” is tied to the transmission network elements represented in the visualization—LBNL explicitly describes the transmission links as the maps used in the analysis.

Importantly, the tool includes a specific control called “Choice of transmission links”, which switches between two sets of analyzed transmission links.

What the July 1, 2026 webinar covered

On July 1, 2026, LBNL hosted a webinar titled “Exploring 2025 patterns in transmission value across the U.S. with LBNL’s Energy Market Value Tool.” The webinar is designed to introduce the tool and demonstrate how to use it, with a focus on 2025.

LBNL says the session includes case studies that investigate geographic patterns, seasonal trends, and shifts in expected trade balances, followed by a live demo and Q&A.

What the slide deck adds for readers

The downloadable webinar slides frame the session around three objectives: explaining recent trends and patterns in transmission market value, introducing and demonstrating the visualization tool, and showing how users can explore the transmission value data analyzed in the two referenced publications.

If you want to move from “clicking a map” to understanding what the tool is doing and what questions it can help answer, the slide deck is the best companion.

What to watch next (and what not to over-claim)

Because this is a modeling-and-visualization staging resource, it’s best used as context for planning discussions—not as proof that a particular upgrade is guaranteed, funded, or imminent.

What to take seriously instead: when you see arguments about congestion, reliability, or market outcomes, look for what transmission link set is being referenced and what the underlying study results are trying to show. LBNL points readers back to the cited publications for the full methods and interpretation.

Sources

• LBNL/EMP: Energy Market Value Tool (Stage 1 – Transmission Value)