Agency Highlights

United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”)

EPA Issues “Compliance First” Enforcement Directive. On December 5, 2025, the EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (“OECA”) issued a memorandum establishing a “compliance first” framework for civil enforcement activities. The memorandum directs enforcement staff to prioritize achieving timely compliance through the most efficient and economical means available, over lengthy enforcement negotiations. The memorandum also requires that enforcement actions align with the “clearest, most defensible interpretations” of statutory and regulatory requirements.

While the memorandum does not create legally binding rights, it signals a shift in enforcement philosophy toward clarity, efficiency, and cooperation over adversarial investigations.

EPA Announces Plans to Propose a Rule Revising the Definition of “Begin Actual Construction” Under the Clean Air Act (“CAA”) New Source Review (“NSR”) Regulations. In September 2025 EPA announced its plans to propose a rule redefining what construction may be completed for a new or modified major stationary source before the final issuance of a new source review (“NSR”).

The CAA prohibits new or modified major stationary sources of air emissions from “begin[ing] actual construction” without first obtaining an NSR permit. Currently, “begin actual construction” is defined by regulation as “the initiation of physical on-site construction activities on an emissions unit which are of a permanent nature,” including ancillary construction such as installing building supports and foundations or laying underground piping.

Historically, EPA has interpreted this definition broadly, leading to a near prohibition on most preparatory actions until the issuance of an NSR permit. However, this definition was rolled back via guidance published in 2020, which recommended the allowance of certain construction, only prohibiting direct work on emissions units prior to NSR issuance. Based on EPA’s announcement, it is anticipated that EPA’s proposed rule will codify this position. The proposed rule is expected early 2026, with a goal of final rule publication before the end of the year.

Plaintiffs Appeal in Private Suit Against EPA for Failure to Regulate Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (“PFAS”). In June 2024, a group of property owners in Johnson County, Texas (“Plaintiffs”) filed suit against the EPA under the citizen suit provision of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), alleging that the EPA has a non-discretionary duty to regulate per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”)in biosolids, which it failed to fulfill. The Plaintiffs further argued that the CWA directs the EPA to produce a biennial (every two years) report reviewing and discovering new toxins and to promulgate regulations on identified toxins within nine months.

After briefing on the claims, a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit against the EPA in its entirety in late September 2025, finding that the two-year timeline applies only to completing the review itself, and does not extend to identifying or regulating newly identified pollutants. The court therefore found that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the case.

In November 2025, the Plaintiffs appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Farmer et al v. United States Environmental Protection Agency et al., No. 1:24-cv-01654 (D.C. Cir. filed Nov. 25, 2025).

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (“TCEQ”)

TCEQ Proposed Rules Clarifying Groundwater District Petition for Inquiry Process. TCEQ has proposed amendments to 30 TAC Chapter 293 implementing HB 2080, which clarifies the petition for inquiry process for groundwater conservation districts. The proposed rules establish that the review panel serves as an advisory board rather than a governmental body, require the recording secretary to be a TCEQ employee, and specify that all panel records are public documents.

Key provisions include requirements for TCEQ to reimburse review panel members for actual expenses, extension of the petition process timeline by 120 days when technical assistance from the Texas Water Development Board (“TWDB”) is sought, and authorization for the panel to request legal assistance from the Office of Public Interest Council (“OPIC”). The amendments also clarify that panel members may seek technical assistance and legal advice from entities beyond TWDB and OPIC.

Proposed rulemaking schedule:

• Anticipated proposal date: January 14, 2026
• Anticipated Texas Register publication date: January 30, 2026
• Anticipated public hearing date: February 24, 2026
• Anticipated public comment period: January 30, 2026 to March 3, 2026
• Anticipated adoption date: June 17, 2026

TCEQ Publishes New “Exiting Post Closure Care” Guidance for Municipal Solid Waste (“MSW”) Facilities. In November 2025, after significant time working with industry leaders and stakeholder groups, TCEQ published Guidance Document No. RG-658 outlining methods for MSW facilities that have closed and met all post closure requirements to exit post closure care (“PCC”). While various requirements exist in rule, this guidance expands on certain provisions and provides additional insight into TCEQ’s processes. Among other details, this guidance provides: (1) detailed information on when a facility may exit PCC; (2) step-by-step instructions for applying for PCC; and (3) information on assessing conditions of the facility. With a regulatory minimum of thirty (30) years of PCC for most MSW facilities, absent evidence supporting an exception, the publication of this guidance is timely given the rising age of many MSW facilities throughout Texas.

Public Utility Commission of Texas (“PUC”)

PUC Implements TCEQ Design Standards for Utility CCNs in Municipal ETJs. The PUC adopted amendments to 16 TAC §24.233 implementing HB 3476 (87th Leg.), clarifying design standards for water and sewer facilities within the extraterritorial jurisdiction of a municipality. The rule, adopted October 2, 2025, requires utilities seeking CCNs within ETJs to design facilities according to applicable TCEQ standards.

Specifically, the amendments establish that for systems serving greater than 250 connections, facilities must meet the applicable TCEQ standards. For systems serving fewer than 250 connections, the utility must meet the applicable TCEQ standards only if the Commission determines (1) TCEQ standards are appropriate for the service area; and (2) regionalization or consolidation of the utility with another utility is not economically feasible under TWC §13.241(d).

Parties to Oncor Rate Case Reach Settlement in Principle. In June 2025, Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC (“Oncor” or “Company”) filed an application with the PUC seeking to increase its transmission and distribution rates by $834 million, or approximately 13% over the company’s present revenues of $6.4 billion. As filed, the application would have resulted in a $7.90/month increase on an average residential customer bill.

Oncor’s application came ahead of schedule as the company was expected to file its next base-rate proceeding in 2027. Company officials attributed the earlier filing date to “hyper-growth” in Oncor’s service territory and large investments resulting from that growth.

In mid-November, parties to the pending rate case, including municipal and industry intervenors, notified the Administrative Law Judge of a settlement in principle. As of January 26, no formal settlement agreement has been filed. Once filed, the agreement will be set for PUC consideration and approval. More information can be found under Docket No. 58306.

AEP Texas, Inc. (“AEP Texas”) Files Inaugural Unified Tracking Mechanism Application. On October 6, 2025, AEP Texas filed an application with the PUC for approval of a single unified tracking mechanism (“UTM”). AEP Texas’ application is the first proceeding of its kind following the passage of House Bill (“HB”) 5247 by the 89th Texas Legislature. Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA) § 36.216 allows an eligible utility to file a single annual proceeding to adjust nonfuel rates on a system-wide basis to reflect changes in transmission and distribution invested capital in lieu of adjustments to retail and wholesale transmission and distribution rates otherwise authorized in Distribution Cost Recovery Factor (“DCRF”), Transmission Cost Recovery Factor (“TCRF”), Transmission Cost of Service (“TCOS”), and System Resiliency Plan (“SRP”) proceedings.

In its UTM Application, AEP Texas requested, among other updates, (1) a DCRF revenue requirement of $95,333,674, which is an increase of $37,035,500 compared to its previously-approved DCRF revenue requirement; (2) a revised Rider TCRF, resulting in a $3.80 decrease compared to the current residential TCRF factor of approximately $17.58 per 1,000 kWh; and (3) a TCOS revenue requirement of $912,022,627, which is an increase of $71,816,138 compared to the Company’s previously-approved TCOS revenue requirement. Cities Served by AEP Texas (“Cities”) and other parties intervened and reviewed AEP Texas’ request. Cities filed direct testimony recommending in part decreases of $23,164,282 and $17,456,958 to the Company’s proposed TCOS and DCRF revenue requirements, respectively. On December 15, 2025, the State Office of Administrative Hearings Administrative Law Judge cancelled the hearing on the merits and granted parties’ agreed motion for a paper hearing. More information on this proceeding can be found in Docket No. 58315.

Ongoing Texas-New Mexico Power Company (“TNMP”) Rate Case. On November 14, 2025, TNMP filed an Application for Authority to Change Rates. This is TNMP’s first comprehensive rate case in over seven years. TNMP has requested a net increase in transmission and distribution rates of approximately $34 million over adjusted test-year revenues, or an approximately 5% increase over adjusted test-year revenues of $673 million. If approved, an average residential customer will see a monthly increase of $5.20 to their electric bill. As a class, residential rates will increase 6.4% if TNMP’s application is approved. TNMP has also requested recovery of $20.5 million for Hurricane Beryl restoration costs to be collected over 5 years with carrying charges.

Cites Served by Texas-New Mexico Power Company and other parties have intervened and requested discovery regarding TNMP’s application. More information on this proceeding can be found in Docket No. 58964.

Texas-New Mexico Power Company and Troy Parentco, LLC Seek Regulatory Approval with the PUC for Proposed Merger. Earlier this year, on August 25, 2025, TNMP and Troy Parentco, LLC (“Troy”) filed a Joint Application for Regulatory Approvals with the PUC for a proposed merger. Under the proposed merger agreement, TXNM Energy, Inc. (TNMP’s parent company) will become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Troy. TNMP and Public Service Company of New Mexico would continue to be subsidiaries of TXNM Energy, Inc. and indirect subsidiaries of Troy and Blackstone Infrastructure. The merger agreement, if approved, would provide a $35 million rate credit to wholesale and retail customers over 48 months.

PUC Staff and other intervening parties (including Cities Served by Texas-New Mexico Power Company) reviewed the Joint Application and participated in settlement discussions with TNMP and Troy. After multiple weeks of settlement discussions, parties entered into a Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement included: TNMP’s agreement to provide a rate credit of $45.5 million to be paid over 48 months; composition of TNMP’s board of directors to include seven members, and at least three members are disinterested directors, and two members include the President and CEO of TNMP; terms relating to dividend restrictions including limitations based on TNMP’s credit rating, and a limitation on TNMP’s ability to make any dividends during the first five years after the close of the acquisition reliant upon a vote of the majority of the disinterested directors, and majority vote of TNMP board of directors to amend, waiver, or modify any of TNMP’s dividend policy; if TNMP’s proposed capital and operations and maintenance budget(s) increase or decrease more than 10% relative to the prior fiscal year, then this change must be approved by a majority of TNMP directors and a majority of the disinterested directors; and ring-fencing provisions to protect the subsidiaries from the parent company’s liabilities including disallowing TNMP’s assets, stock, or revenues from being pledged for the benefit of any entity other than TNMP, TNMP and other subsidiaries will not take on any new debt in conjunction with the Acquisition, and terms related to no cross-defaults, no affiliate asset transfers, maintaining separate books and records, etc. The PUC has not made a final decision. The Settlement Agreement can be found on the PUC Interchange in Docket No. 58536.

AEP Texas Application to Amend Mobile Temporary Emergency Electric Energy Facilities (“TEEEF”) Rider. As previously reported, AEP Texas filed an Application to Amend its Rider Mobile TEEEF. AEP Texas sought a total Rider Mobile TEEEF revenue requirement of $36.3 million. AEP Texas, intervening parties (including AEP Cities), and PUC Staff participated in settlement discussions, and a Settlement was achieved. The Settlement Agreement reduced AEP’s requested Rider Mobile TEEEF revenue requirement to $24.2 million. On November 14, 2025, the PUC filed a Final Order approving the Settlement Agreement. The Final Order can be found on the PUC’s Interchange in Docket No. 58076.

CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC (“CenterPoint”) Application to Reduce its TEEEF Capacity and Rider and Application for Authorization to Lease TEEEF. In mid-2025, CenterPoint filed two TEEEF related applications with the PUC – an Application to Reduce its TEEEF Capacity and Rates (“Reduction Application”) in PUC Docket No. 57980 and an Application for Authorization to Lease TEEEF (“Lease Authorization Application”) in PUC Docket No. 58107.

The Reduction Application, filed in May 2025, included the request for approval of (1) a solution to make fifteen 32 MW TEEEF units available to ERCOT and CPS Energy beginning on or around May 1, 2025; (2) a corresponding reduction to the capacity of CenterPoint’s TEEEF fleet; and (3) a TEEEF Rider rate reduction to reflect the removal of the fifteen 32 MW TEEEF units. CenterPoint sought a decrease of $24,022,583 from its TEEEF revenue requirement, resulting in a revenue requirement of $129,180,464. On November 21, 2025, CenterPoint filed supplemental documents, additionally requesting (1) to remove its 5.7 MW TEEEF units; (2) a corresponding reduction to its capacity of TEEEF fleet; and (3) a TEEEF Rider rate reduction to reflect the removal of the 5.7 MW in additional to the 32 MW TEEEF units. This supplemental reduction would further decrease CenterPoint’s TEEEF revenue requirement by $62.1 million, resulting in a revenue requirement of $91,055,627. CenterPoint made the decision to further remove the 5.7MW units due to the Legislature amending the Public Utility Regulatory Act § 39.918 (which placed a limit on the maximum generation capacity of TEEEF units to not more than 5 MW) and CenterPoint’s pending Lease Authorization Application. Varying stakeholders, including the Gulf Coast Coalition of Cities, have intervened and are evaluating the request and supplemental request to ensure customers are made whole for the removal of the fifteen units from CenterPoint’s TEEEF fleet.

While these discussions are ongoing, CenterPoint and many of the same stakeholders found a resolution in CenterPoint’s Lease Authorization Application – requesting authorization to enter into a new TEEEF lease for approximately 20 MW of TEEEF capacity consisting of 36 small (1.5 MW or less) units for a period of 36 months. Filed on December 3, 2025, the Settlement Agreement’s terms relate to CenterPoint’s agreement to maintain records identifying locations suitable for TEEEF deployment; CenterPoint’s agreement to provide information to Gulf Coast Coalition of Cities, PUC Staff, and the Office of Public Utility Counsel (“OPUC”) regarding a TEEEF deployment event; communication between CenterPoint and city, county officials, and Critical Load customers when a potential TEEEF deployment becomes reasonably foreseeable; CenterPoint’s lease agreement will include a term allowing it to exit the lease agreement if ordered by the PUC or if otherwise required to be in compliance with applicable law or PUC rules; and CenterPoint’s agreement to continue to assess potential improvements in communication with customers and retail electric providers related to the deployment of TEEEF. The Administrative Law Judge presiding over the proceeding has remanded the proceeding back to the PUC but has not yet made any recommendations on the Settlement Agreement.

CenterPoint System Resiliency Plan Settlement is Approved with Modifications. On November 19, 2025, a Final Order was filed approving the Settlement Agreement between CenterPoint, PUC Staff, and other intervening parties (including Gulf Coast Coalition of Cities) with modifications pursuant to Commissioner Courtney Hjaltman’s memorandum. Initially, CenterPoint requested authorization to spend $5.75 billion over a three-year period on 39 resiliency projects (also referred to as measures). After weeks of discussions, parties finalized a Settlement Agreement which resulted in a reduction to the Resiliency Plan by $2.576 billion. Under the settlement agreement, CenterPoint agreed to spend an estimated $3.178 billion over three years on 30 resiliency projects, and would defer $242 million to a fourth year in order to decrease the impact on ratepayers.

The Administrative Law Judge recommended the PUC approve the Settlement Agreement. However, upon review, Commissioner Hjaltman had concerns related to CenterPoint’s proposed vegetation management resiliency measures, and three proposed measures that involve the replacement or extension of the useful life of legacy cables or degrading structures. Although CenterPoint provided additional evidence in support of its vegetation management measures, Commissioner Hjaltman ultimately recommended a reduction to the vegetation management measures which included the removal of projects with a benefit to cost ratio that indicated the benefit of the project does not outweigh the cost. Commissioner Hjaltman additionally maintained her recommendation for the removal of the three measures involving the replacement or extension of the useful life of legacy cables or degrading structures because those measures were not sufficiently distinct from CenterPoint’s existing responsibilities to make reasonable upgrades or replacements. At the PUC Open Meeting held on November 14, 2025, all PUC Commissioners agreed with Commissioner Hjaltman’s recommendations, and a Final Order approving the Settlement with the modifications proposed by Commissioner Hjaltman was passed. Commissioner Hjaltman’s memorandums and the Final Order can be found on the PUC Interchange in Docket No. 57579.

Energy Efficiency Cost Recovery Factor (“EECRF”) Updates. As previously reported, AEP Texas, Inc. (“AEP Texas”); Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC (“Oncor”); and CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC (“CenterPoint”) filed their EECRF applications on May 30, 2025, and Texas-New Mexico Power Company (“TNMP”) filed its EECRF application on June 27, 2025. Under the Public Utility Regulatory Act and the PUC Rules, a utility must file an application annually with the PUC to adjust its EECRF in order to recover the utility’s forecasted annual energy efficiency program expenditures, the preceding year’s over- or under-recovery including interest and municipal and utility EECRF proceeding expenses, any performance bonus earned, and evaluation, measurement, and verification (“EM&V”) contractor costs allocated to the utility by the PUC in the preceding year.

In AEP Texas’s EECRF application proceeding, AEP Texas, PUC Staff, and intervening parties have come to a settlement which results in a reduction of $435. This reduction stems from a reduction to AEP Texas’ adjustment of $391,167 for its net under-recovery of program year 2024 energy-efficiency costs, and a reduction to the requested $20,556 for rate case expenses incurred in the previous EECRF proceeding. In total, the Settlement Agreement allows AEP Texas to recover $29,572,074 during the program year 2026. The $29,572,074 includes (1) AEP Texas’s forecasted energy efficiency cost of $18,859,458; (2) EM&V expenses in the amount of $254,234 for the evaluation of program year 2025; (3) an adjustment of $391,167 for AEP Texas’ net under-recovery of program year 2024 energy-efficiency costs; (4) an adjustment of $40,792 for the interest on the net under-recovery of program year 2024 energy-efficiency costs; (5) a performance bonus of $10,006,302 for program year 2024 achievements; and (6) rate-case expenses incurred in the previous EECRF proceeding in the amount of $20,121 for AEP Texas. The Administrative Law Judge recommended approval of the Settlement Agreement and has remanded the proceeding back to the PUC for approval. More information can be found on the PUC’s Interchange in Docket No. 58156.

The PUC filed a Final Order on December 12, 2025 approving the Settlement Agreement between CenterPoint, PUC Staff and intervening parties in CenterPoint’s EECRF application proceeding. The Settlement Agreement did not change CenterPoint’s requested recovery of $96,837,175 for (1) an estimated 2026 energy efficiency program cost of $50,155,355; (2) a performance bonus for 2024 program achievements of $40,313,445; (3) $576,924 in certain EM&V costs for evaluation of program year 2025; (4) a charge of $4,298,232 related to the under-recovery of 2024 program costs (including a charge of $448,229 for interest related to the under-recovery); (5) $44,990 in 2024 EECRF proceeding rate case expenses. However, under the approved Settlement Agreement, CenterPoint agreed to terms including (1) complete its planned market potential study, a portion of which will seek to gauge CenterPoint’s ability to increase program spending for hard-to-reach and low-income standard offer programs, or other programs that help CenterPoint customers reduce their electric consumption; (2) meet with Sierra Club (one of the intervening parties) to discuss any recommendations in advance of the PUC’s Energy Efficiency Implementation Project meetings for potential inclusion in CenterPoint’s Energy Efficiency Portfolio; (3) meet with Sierra Club to discuss opportunities to educate residents within CenterPoint’s service area about existing energy efficiency programs offered; (4) participate in an educational workshop in cooperation with the Sierra Club to present residents within the CenterPoint service area with pre-approved educations information about existing energy efficiency programs; and (5) provide information about how customers may access monies available through the Home Energy Performance-Based, Whole House (HOMES) and Home Electrification and Application Rebate (HEAR) program administered by the State Energy Conservation Office, assuming those programs become available in 2026. The Final Order and Settlement Agreement can be found on the PUC’s Interchange in Docket No. 58185.
On December 12, 2025, the PUC filed a Final Order in Oncor’s EECRF application proceeding, approving the EECRF application. After participating in settlement discussions, PUC Staff ultimately agreed with and supported Oncor’s application as filed, and the Steering Committee of Cities Served by Oncor did not oppose the application. The Final Order approved Oncor’s requested recovery of $104,807,363, consisting of: (1) $63,800,000 in energy efficiency expenses forecasted for the 2026 program year; (2) allocation of $7,622,221 for the total under-recovery of 2024 energy efficiency costs that includes the required interest payment; (3) inclusion of a $32,560,930 energy efficiency performance bonus based on Oncor’s energy efficiency achievements in 2024; and (4) $816,517 for the estimated EM&V costs for the evaluation of program year 2025. The Final Order can be found on the PUC’s Interchange in Docket No. 58182.

On November 14, 2025, the PUC filed a Final Order in TNMP’s EECRF application proceeding approved the Settlement Agreement between TNMP and PUC Staff. In the Settlement Agreement, TNMP agreed to forgo recovery of $1,238 of inadvertently included administrative expenses. Under the approved Settlement Agreement, TNMP’s requested recovery of $833,213 was reduced to $831,975, consisting of: (1) $6,656,727 in forecasted energy efficiency costs for TNMP’s 2026 energy efficiency programs; (2) $2,518,347 representing a performance bonus for TNMP having achieved demand savings that exceeded its goal for achievements in program year 2024; (3) $57,178 in forecasted EM&V expenses; (4) a refund of $993,247 for the net over-collection of 2024 energy efficiency costs, which accounts for $50,693 in rate-case expenses incurred by TNMP in the previous EECRF proceeding; and (5) interest to be refunded on the over-collection in the amount of $103,578. The Final Order can be found on the PUC’s Interchange in Docket No. 58140.

Railroad Commission (“RRC”)

Texas Gas Service Company, a Division of One Gas, Inc. (“Texas Gas”) Request to Change Gas Utility Rates Settles. As previously reported, on June 30, 2025, Texas Gas filed its Statement of Intent to Change Gas Utility Rates with the cities in Texas Gas’ Central-Gulf, West North, and Rio Grande Valley Service Areas, as well as with the RRC. In its Application, Texas Gas sought approval to consolidate all service areas into a single statewide jurisdiction. Texas Gas’ proposed rates for its customers are based on a system-wide cost of providing service to customers throughout the entirety of Texas. Texas Gas further proposed to increase revenues by $41.1 million.

After participating in settlement discussions, RRC Staff, Texas Gas, and multiple intervening city coalitions (including Cities Served by Texas Gas Service Company representing cities in both the Central-Gulf and Rio Grande Valley Service Areas) executed a Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement included a $15 million rate increase (compared to $41.1 million initially proposed by Texas Gas, a return on equity of 9.8% (compared to 10.4% initial proposed by Texas Gas), and the expansion of the Customer Assistance Program, including a shareholder contribution. The Settlement Agreement, however, did not include the issue of whether to consolidate all of Texas Gas’ service areas. A Hearing on the Merits was held in early November and was limited to only the issue of consolidation. On December 23, the Administrative Law Judge filed a Proposal for Decision recommending the RRC partially approve the Settlement Agreement and approve consolidation. The Proposal for Decision did not recommend approval of the expansion of the Customer Assistance Program which would result in a further reduction of $574,000 to reflect the disallowance of the program funding through base rates. The Administrative Law Judge reasoned that recovery of funds for the Program through rates would fall under the RRC Rule § 7.5414 prohibition of “funds expended for contributions and donations to charitable, religious, or other nonprofit organizations or institutions” from being included in a utilities’ cost of service. Texas Gas, RRC Staff, and intervening parties have the ability to file exceptions to the Proposal for the Decision before the RRC takes the Proposal for Decision up for consideration. More information can be found on the RRC’s website in GUD Case No. OS-25-00028202.

Electric Reliability Council of Texas (“ERCOT”)

Record Number of Cities Join ERCOT for 2026. For 2026, 177 cities and political subdivisions registered as ERCOT members. This number exceeds last year’s total of 166 sign-ups as well as the number of city signups during any prior year. In addition, 26 members this year are new as compared to last year’s membership.

As ERCOT members, consumers have a voice in ERCOT’s decision-making process. Cities and political subdivisions are represented under one of two stakeholder groups – the Large Commercial Consumer or Small Commercial Consumer segments. Because cities and political subdivision members comprise an overwhelming majority of the members in both segments, they are able to vote and select its segments’ representatives to the Technical Advisory Committee (“TAC”). As such, those representatives can vote on important technical issues that affect the affordability and reliability of power. The strong contingency of city members will help advance cities’ interests in 2026.

“Agency Highlights” is prepared by Andres Castillo in the Firm’s Districts, Water, and Litigation Practice Groups; Mattie Neira in the Firm’s Air and Waste Practice Group; Jack Klug in the Firm’s Energy and Utility Practice Group, Samantha Miller in the Firm’s Energy and Utility Practice Group, and Roslyn Warner in the Firm’s Energy and Utility Practice Group. If you would like additional information or have questions related to these agencies or other matters, please contact Andres at 512.322.5868 or acastillo@lglawfirm.com, or Mattie at 512.322.5804 or mneira@lglawfirm.com, or Jack at 512.322.5837 or jklug@lglawfirm.com, or Samantha at 512.322.5808 or smiller@lglawfirm.com, or Roslyn at 512.322.5802 or rwarner@lglawfirm.com.