Facing a Potentially Lengthy Non quorum Period, FERC Delegates Further Authority to Its Staff

Feb 6, 2017

Reading Time : 4 min

Recognizing its “continuing responsibility to carry out its regulatory obligations” under the statutes it administers—including the Federal Power Act (FPA), Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Interstate Commerce Act—FERC delegated certain “further authority” to FERC staff as specified in the Delegation Order effective February 4, 2017. The additional delegated authority will remain effective only “until such time as the Commission again has a quorum and takes action to lift the delegation” not to “extend beyond 14 days following the date a quorum is reestablished.” The delegations to “staff” under the Delegation Order mean “to the relevant office director,” but “such authority may be further delegated to his or her designee” consistent with FERC’s regulations.

Among the important reasons for FERC’s action is that, during the period when it has fewer than three commissioners and lacks a quorum, FERC-jurisdictional entities will continue to make rate and other filings under the FPA and NGA, which, “in the absence of Commission action . . . would take effect [by operation of law] without suspension, refund protection, or the ability for protesting parties to [request rehearing or] appeal.” In the Delegation Order, FERC stated that its “general practice has been not to allow such filings to go into effect by operation of law” and that one purpose of the additional delegations in the order is to “ensure that staff has authority to prevent such filings from going into effect by operation of law” during the non quorum period.

With regard to such filings, the Delegation Order provides that, if the date by which the Commission is required to act on a filing with a statutory action deadline falls during the period that the Commission lacks a quorum, FERC staff is delegated further authority (1) to accept and suspend such filings and to make them effective, subject to refund and further order of the Commission; or (2) to accept and suspend such filings and to make them effective, subject to refund, and to set them for hearing and settlement judge procedures.

The Delegation Order further provides that such action is without prejudice to any further FERC action when FERC regains a quorum. For initial rates and rate decreases under Section 205 “for which suspension and refund protection are unavailable,” FERC also delegated authority to staff, pursuant to Section 206 of the FPA, “to institute a proceeding to protect the interests of customers.”

Importantly, FERC states that “[d]ecisions made pursuant to delegated authority may be challenged on rehearing,” but “authority to act on requests for rehearing is not being delegated.”3 

FERC also delegated authority to its staff to:

  • “extend the time for action on matters where such extension of time is permitted by statute,” such as extending the 180-day period for consideration of filings under Section 203 of the FPA
  • “take appropriate action on uncontested filings . . . seeking waivers of the terms and conditions of tariffs, rate schedules and service agreements, including waivers related to, e.g., capacity release and capacity market rules”
  • “accept settlements not contested by any party or participant, including Commission Trial Staff.”

In addition, citing the Anti-Deficiency Act,4 FERC also noted that, during the period when there is no quorum, other “limited Commission operations can continue,” even absent delegation of further authority to staff, including activities that, if not performed, would “imminently threaten the safety of human life or the protection of property,” such as “inspecting and responding to incidents at liquefied natural gas facilities or jurisdictional hydropower projects.”

These additional delegations to FERC staff are limited in scope, and are in addition to existing delegations of authority to staff to act on routine and non controversial matters, including uncontested rate filings. While the additional delegations will ensure that contested rates and tariff provisions cannot take full effect without a Commission vote, they do not give FERC staff authority to reach final decisions on such matters. As a result, they will do little to resolve what is likely to be a period of profound uncertainty caused by the inability of the Commission to reach decisions on contested and often controversial matters, such as Regional Transmission Organization/Independent System Operator market design, approval of the construction of new natural gas pipelines, and other issues critical to energy markets and infrastructure development. In addition, FERC-regulated entities may be hampered in their ability to move forward with mergers or other corporate transactions, or to obtain favorable financing for infrastructure projects, as long as FERC is unable to issue decisions on contested filings.

As of this writing, it appears that this unprecedented period of uncertainty could linger for some time, since the Trump administration has not yet nominated individuals to fill FERC’s three open seats. Once the administration makes and transmits its nominations to the Senate, further delay could result from the need to find room for confirmation hearings on a legislative calendar already crowded with nominations to numerous other government posts. Moreover, once seated, the new FERC commissioners will face an immediate backlog of contested matters waiting for resolution, and it could take the agency many months to get back up to speed.


1 See 18 C.F.R. §§ 375.301-.315 (2016).

2 FERC subsequently issued several corrections to its Delegation Order.

3 Because authority to issue “tolling orders” extending the time for FERC to act on requests for rehearing “already rests with the Secretary, . . . timely requests for rehearing will be addressed when the Commission again has a quorum.”

4 See 31 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1342 (2012).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

December 5, 2024

On November 27, 2024, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) issued Venture Global CP2 LNG, LLC,1 an order that sets aside, in part, the Commission’s prior authorization of the CP2 LNG Terminal and CP Express Pipeline Project (collectively, the CP2 Project) under sections 3 and 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA). In anticipation of future appellate challenges to its authorization of the CP2 Project, FERC ordered the initiation of a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) process under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to assess the CP2 Project’s contribution to cumulative air impacts for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5). Accordingly, FERC stated that it would not allow construction to commence on the CP2 Project’s proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal and related feed gas pipeline until the SEIS process concluded and a subsequent order was issued. Concurrent with its Venture Global order, FERC issued a projected schedule for the NEPA process that does not conclude until July 24, 2025. Construction on the CP2 Project had been expected to be imminent, with the project sponsor seeking a partial authorization to proceed with construction only hours prior to Venture Global’s issuance.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

December 5, 2024

On November 27, 2024, in Venture Global, CP2 LNG, LLC,1 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC or Commission) explicitly overruled precedent set in Northern Natural Gas Co.,2 a 2021 decision in which FERC made an affirmative finding that an interstate natural gas pipeline project it was certificating under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) would not make a “significant” contribution to global climate change. Northern Natural is the only FERC decision in which a so-called significance determination was made with respect to greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) arising from a FERC-regulated natural gas infrastructure project. In Venture Global, FERC rejected arguments that it needed to follow Northern Natural and assess the significance of GHG emissions in all NGA certificate proceedings to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA requires federal agencies, including FERC, that perform “major federal actions,” which include issuing NGA section 7 certificates, to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) if the action will “significantly affect[] the quality of the human environment.”3 FERC has been under pressure to fully explain why it has chosen not to apply Northern Natural’s significance analysis in subsequent cases, and that issue is currently before FERC on remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit) in Healthy Gulf et al. v. FERC, which reviewed FERC’s approval of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal under NGA section 3.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

December 4, 2024

On November 21, 2024, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) issued Order No. 1920-A1 addressing requests for rehearing and clarification of FERC’s landmark final rule on transmission planning and cost allocation issued in May 2024. While the Commission largely affirmed the final rule, the order grants rehearing of some of the more controversial aspects of Order No. 1920.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

August 7, 2024

*Thank you to JaKell Larson, 2024 Akin Summer Associate, for her valuable collaboration on this article.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 31, 2024

Interstate oil, liquid and refined products pipelines regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) will soon be able to raise their transportation rates (provided they were set using FERC’s popular Index rate methodology) in the wake of a significant new decision by the District of Columbia Circuit (the D.C. Circuit) in Liquid Energy Pipeline Association v. FERC (LEPA).

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 29, 2024

On Wednesday, July 24, 2024, the U.S. House of Representative Committee on Energy and Commerce held a Subcommittee on Energy, Climate, and Grid Security hearing to review the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Request. Members of the Subcommittee had the opportunity to hear testimony from all five Commissioners, including FERC Chairman Willie Phillips and Commissioner Mark Christie, as well as the three recently confirmed commissioners, David Rosner, Lindsay See and Judy Chang. In addition to their prepared remarks, the five commissioners answered questions on FERC’s mandate to provide affordable and reliable electricity and natural gas services nationwide, while also ensuring it fulfills its primary mission of maintaining just and reasonable rates.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 29, 2024

On July 9, 2024, the U.S. Court of the Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) erred in ordering refunds for certain bilateral spot market transactions in the Western Energy Coordinating Council (WECC) region that exceeded the $1,000/megawatt-hour (MWh) “soft” price cap for such sales.1 Finding FERC failed to conduct a “Mobile-Sierra public-interest analysis” before “altering” those contracts by ordering refunds, the court vacated FERC’s orders and remanded the case to FERC for further proceedings.2

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 8, 2024

On June 28, 2024, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which for 40 years required court deference to reasonable agency interpretations of federal statutes in certain circumstances, even when the reviewing court would read the statute differently. The Court ended “Chevron deference” and held that courts “must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.” In doing so, the Court upended a longstanding principle of administrative law that is likely to make agency decisions more susceptible to challenge in the courts.

...

Read More

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.