Interstate Gas Supply Register: Georgia, Tennessee, Virginia, v1.4
Tennessee, carried as a declared gap in every deposited version until now, is closed.
Tennessee, carried as a declared gap in every deposited version until now, is closed. Three rows are added, all built from primary FERC and TVA documents and none from PJM's Independent Market Monitor: CP23-516-000 (Ridgeline Expansion, East Tennessee Natural Gas), CP22-493-000 (Cumberland, Tennessee Gas Pipeline) and CP25-514-000 (Mississippi Crossing, Tennessee Gas Pipeline). The register is fifteen rows and the same eighteen columns, still with no empty cells. Version 1.3 was an internal freeze and was never deposited; this version supersedes 1.2 directly.
What the Tennessee rows are for. The question this register puts to every docket is who decides whether the capacity is needed and what it will cost. Virginia's answer was that no state instrument reviewed either. Tennessee reaches the same answer by the opposite route: the Tennessee Valley Authority is the sole shipper in both TVA dockets and it answers to no state commission. The Commission's own words, in the Ridgeline order of 22 January 2026: TVA "is not a 'public utility' subject to the Commission's rate review authority under the Federal Power Act, which makes this project configuration unique compared to other regions of the country." The Commission's response to that objection is on the record in both dockets, and it holds that state commission oversight is not a prerequisite and that congressional oversight is "sufficiently analogous". The phrase appears in the Cumberland rehearing order and the Ridgeline certificate order and in no other document under Generation/primary, on a corpus search run 20 September 2026.
Both dockets ran an open season, and no earlier version of this register carried either. Cumberland's ran 8 to 29 October 2021 and produced the precedent agreement. Ridgeline's drew "no other interested bids or turnback of capacity". Any reading of an earlier version to the effect that the Commission never tested the market for this capacity was reading a register that had not looked. The Cumberland open season also creates a date conflict this version carries rather than resolves: TVA's own final environmental impact statement dates the precedent agreement to 11 August 2021, and both Commission orders say it resulted from an open season that closed 29 October 2021. No document on disk reconciles them.
TVA takes service under a negotiated rate in both dockets. The incremental recourse rate is a ceiling and a fallback, not the price paid. A cost question put to this record is answered off the record, not unanswerable. TVA was also awarded 221,000 Dth/d of firm transportation on Tennessee Gas Pipeline's 100 Line and 800 Line mainline at a discounted rate, using existing unsubscribed reserved capacity, which no earlier version recorded. Every statement in this register about TVA taking the full capacity is about the lateral.
Mississippi Crossing is a live docket and must not be described as final. The order is a combined order covering CP25-514-000 and CP25-517-000, so any citation must name which project. It is internally inconsistent on shipper count and on cost, and its "approximately 42%" unaffiliated share cannot be derived from its own table under any grouping of four. Two requests for rehearing and a motion for stay were filed in August 2026, the applicants answered on 15 September 2026, and no Commission order on rehearing had issued as at 18 September 2026 on a bounded eLibrary search.
Data centers in the certificate record. The spaced string "data center" occurs thirteen times in the Mississippi Crossing order and the hyphenated form once. It returns zero in both TVA certificate orders and in every order on disk issued before 2026, across the 61 FERC documents under Generation/primary/ferc searched 20 September 2026 in four spellings. Any statement that FERC certificate orders do not mention data centers must name the orders it is about.
The unit is the docket, not the state. A single certificate spans states; state enters as an attribute. Eighteen columns per row, and no cell is empty : a field with no value states why, and a negative states the document set searched and the date it was run. A negative is never graded primary. Two selection rules govern the rows and must be stated as two: eleven rows are the Monitor's enumeration, taken as a closed enumeration of a defined source; four are not, and the four are not a census of anything.
Reliability. 543 claims from rows 13 to 15 are decomposed on the second-coder sheet across all eighteen fields, with both coder columns left empty for a reader who has not seen the research. Every value_as_coded is a verbatim substring of a current register cell. The grades across those 543: 398 primary on disk, 89 bounded negatives, 16 derived arithmetic, 16 inferences, 11 single source off disk, 6 method records, 4 secondary, 2 primary not retrieved, 1 carried from a project file and not tested. The 108-claim sheet for rows 1 to 12 travels here unchanged at the v1.2 standard. Ninety-five numbered corrections are recorded at section 7 of the source document, forty-six of them since the v1.2 deposit. Two were made after this record published and the files were replaced in place, same DOI and no new version. Correction 94: the falsified sentence "The Commission cites the statute once, in a rehearing-order footnote" had been reversed in the working paper and left standing in the register's row 14 and in the second coder sheet; the statute, 16 U.S.C. section 831m-1, is cited four times across three Commission orders, re-counted 20 September 2026. Correction 95, from a front-to-back read of the working paper: the same reversed sentence about what the Cumberland rehearing order left untouched had survived in two further places, a negative about the word "upgrade" had been widened from the two Cumberland orders to four and is false at that width, and the README repeated a form about Roane County that the register itself forbids. Four primary documents entered the corpus in this version and all four changed a claim: EDF v. FERC , 2 F.4th 953; Sierra Club v. TDEC , 133 F.4th 661; the text of 15 U.S.C. section 717f; and the amended complaint in Appalachian Voices v. TVA , No. 3:23-cv-00604 (M.D. Tenn.), which pleads six counts where a reading taken off disk had reported five.
The largest open exposure, stated plainly. Every audit pass, document reader and sheet build was run by language-model agents working cold against the raw files. One cross-model review was obtained and adjudicated against primary text; it improved four cells and does not close the exposure, because the adjudication was done from inside. No reader outside that model family has checked the register claim by claim. The second-coder sheet exists so that a human or a different model can, and until one does, the exposure cannot be closed from inside.
Start with Gas_Supply_Register_v1_4_README.md , then the source document, which governs wherever a working note disagrees with it. The primary documents behind the register are not redistributed here; their hashes are in the register's source_report cells and in the source document at section 2, and the manifest is at concept DOI 10.5281/zenodo.22099427. The Virginia certificate proceeding read against this register is written up in What the Record Does Not Say , concept DOI 10.5281/zenodo.22754150. The Georgia certification proceeding is written up in What the Certificate Points At , concept DOI 10.5281/zenodo.22754180. The Tennessee rows are the evidence base for a working paper in preparation.