Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC, Proposed Pulaski Project
Details
The document's own metadata, straight from the source system.
- Title
- Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC, Proposed Pulaski Project
- Posted
- Jun 25, 2026
- Comment period
- Jun 25, 2026 – ?
- FR Doc
- 2026-12853
Overview
What the public is saying — stance, who's commenting, and the issues they raise.
Stance breakdown
Who commented
Breakdown by commenter type.
Comments over time
Weekly arrivals, stacked by stance.
Support × commenter type
How each type splits across stance.
Issues raised
The docket's canonical issues. Select one to browse its comments.
Issues are identified as comment analysis progresses — nothing tagged on this document yet.
Explorer
Every mirrored comment — filter by stance, campaign, or issue.
- May 18, 2026Commerce LexingtonSupportBusiness📎 Attachment
Robert L. Quick, CEO of Commerce Lexington, is writing on behalf of over 1,900 member companies and organizations. He argues that the Pulaski Project is a necessary and sensible investment in reliable energy infrastructure essential for the region's economic vitality and growth.
Read comment → - May 5, 2026Kentucky General AssemblySupportGovernment📎 Attachment
State Representative Myron Dossett writes in support of the Pulaski Project, arguing that it is a necessary investment for energy reliability and economic competitiveness. He emphasizes that strengthening pipeline infrastructure is critical for meeting rising electricity demand and ensuring supply security for Kentucky's employers.
Read comment → - May 4, 2026Kentucky General AssemblyOtherOther📎 Attachment
The provided comment text contains only XML metadata for a Word document and does not include any actual text or arguments. No position or commenter identity can be determined.
Read comment → - Mar 19, 2026Kentucky Attorney GeneralSupportGovernment📎 Attachment
Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman supports the Pulaski Project, stating that it will help ensure the continued operation of the John Sherman Cooper Power Station. He argues that the project is a practical step toward maintaining energy security, reliability, and long-term viability for the Commonwealth's energy network.
Read comment → - Mar 6, 2026Kentucky General AssemblyAnalysis pending📎 AttachmentRead comment →
- Mar 2, 2026Legislative Research CommissionSupportGovernment📎 Attachment
Kentucky State Representative Wade Williams supports the Pulaski Project, arguing that it provides essential infrastructure for energy reliability. He emphasizes that the project will support economic development, public safety, and the growth of local businesses and families in the region.
Read comment → - Feb 3, 2026COPPERHEAD ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING INCSupportBusiness📎 Attachment
Marty Marchaterre, a Senior Environmental Planner at Copperhead Environmental Consulting, Inc., supports the Pulaski Project. He argues that the project is necessary to meet Kentucky's growing electricity demand from manufacturing and data centers while providing grid reliability and economic growth.
Read comment → - Jan 29, 2026Kentucky General AssemblySupportGovernment📎 Attachment
State Senator Robin L. Webb of Kentucky expresses support for the Pulaski Project proposed by TC Energy. The Senator argues that the project is necessary to meet growing energy demands from manufacturing, improve grid reliability, and provide benefits to residential and commercial ratepayers.
Read comment → - Jan 14, 2026KENTUCKY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESupportGovernment📎 Attachment
David W. Osborne, Speaker of the Kentucky House of Representatives, expresses strong support for the Pulaski Project. He argues that the project is essential for Kentucky's economic growth, energy reliability, and job creation by providing a dependable energy supply for the state's industries.
Read comment → - Dec 29, 2025Our Children's TrustOpposeAdvocacy📎 Attachment
Our Children’s Trust, a law firm representing children and youth, opposes the Pulaski Project because it promotes fossil fuel infrastructure that harms children's health and violates their constitutional rights. They argue that the project contributes to climate change and advocate for a transition to renewable energy instead.
Read comment →
