FERC Clarifies New Requirements for Certain Filings

Aug 26, 2020

Reading Time : 2 min

In response to a request for clarification or, in the alternative, rehearing, “to ensure that a legally valid back-up means of timely filing will remain available, in the event the Commission’s electronic filing . . . system experiences an unexpected malfunction on the day a filing is due,”6 FERC clarified that, “in the rare instance where a Commission eFiling system malfunction prevents a timely filing, the filer may continue to use the Commission’s established practice of contacting the Commission’s Office of the Secretary (OSEC) through ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov to report the eFiling system malfunction.”7 Such email must: “(1) summarize the problem; (2) attach, if feasible, the public version of the filing solely to indicate proof of the filer’s attempt to submit a filing; and (3) provide any other evidence of timely attempts to file, such as screenshots of error messages. OSEC staff will verify the existence of the reported malfunction and the filer’s attempt to make a timely submission. OSEC will also acknowledge and respond to the filer’s email.”8

Importantly, however, such email “does not itself constitute a formal submission of the filing and will not be processed as such.”9 Rather, “[i]f the eFiling system error is not corrected in a manner that permits filing by 5:00 p.m. on the date the filing was attempted, the filer must also comply with [certain additional] steps.”10 Specifically, in addition to sending the OSEC notification email, “the filer must, at the earliest possible time on the next business day, either: (1) formally submit the filing electronically through the eFiling system; or (2) submit the filing by hard copy to the off-site screening facility. Of the foregoing two options, the filer shall choose the most expedient option.”11 If the filer “meets each of [these] requirements . . . , the filing will be considered timely filed.”12

This clarification and guidance is particularly important for filings with statutory deadlines that FERC lacks discretion to extend, such as the 30-day deadline for requests for rehearing of FERC orders.13 Because timely filing a request for rehearing is necessary to preserve a party’s arguments on rehearing, as well as its standing for judicial review, ensuring compliance with such deadlines is critical.


1 Formal Requirements for Filings in Proceedings Before the Comm’n, 172 FERC ¶ 61,145 (2020) (Clarification Order).

2 Id. P 1.

3 Formal Requirements for Filings in Proceedings Before the Comm’n, Notice Regarding Effective Date, Docket No. RM19-18-000 (June 23, 2020).

4 Clarification Order at P 1.

5 Id. P 7.

6 Id. P 1 (internal quotation marks omitted).

7 Id. P 7.

8 Id. P 8 (emphasis in original, footnote omitted).

9 Id. P 9 (emphasis added).

10 Id. (emphasis added).

11 Id. (emphasis in original).

12 Id. P 10.

13 See 16 U.S.C. § 825l(a) (2018) (a party to a proceeding “aggrieved by an order issued by the Commission in [the] proceeding . . . may apply for a rehearing within thirty days after the issuance of such order”). See also, e.g., N. Am. Elec. Reliability Corp., 147 FERC ¶ 61,140 (2014) (“[A]n aggrieved party must file an application for rehearing within thirty days after the issuance of the Commission’s order. . . . [T]he courts and the Commission have repeatedly recognized that the time period by which a party may file an application for rehearing of a Commission order is statutorily established at 30 days and that the Commission has no discretion to extend that deadline.” (Footnotes omitted.)).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

July 8, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE) directing ISO-NE and ISO-NE participating transmission owners to show cause as to why ISO-NE’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (ISO New England Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,215 (2026) (Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 7, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in Leonard Hoffmann v. WBI Energy Transmission, Inc. (Hoffmann), which presents the question whether section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requires pipeline companies using federal eminent domain authority to pay landowners’ attorney’s fees in states where landowners can recover those fees under state law. In the decision giving rise to the Supreme Court’s review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a group of ranchers were not entitled to recover their $383,300 in attorney’s fees incurred while negotiating their compensation—creating a circuit split with four other courts of appeals. Hoffmann will be heard during the Court’s October 2026 Term, and marks the second time in five years that the Court has agreed to interpret NGA section 7.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 6, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued Trump v. Slaughter, fundamentally reshaping presidential removal authority over independent regulatory agencies. The decision overruled a 90-year-old precedent established in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had upheld the constitutionality of commissioner removal protections in the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act). As written, the FTC Act permits a commissioner’s removal “only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” In Slaughter, the Court was asked to reevaluate this standard following the President’s removal of a Democratic-appointed FTC commissioner from office in 2025 without cause. Finding for the President, the Court held that removal was permissible because the FTC Act’s for-cause removal protections for commissioners violate the separation of powers, specifically, the President’s removal power under Article II. The Court explained that the FTC exercises executive power because it promulgates binding rules, investigates and enforces those rules through administrative adjudications, and brings civil enforcement actions in federal court. It found that because it exercises these executive powers, its commissioners “must therefore be controlled by the Chief Executive, in whom such power is vested.” While previous recent cases addressing the scope of the Removal Power, Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Collins v. Yellen purported to preserve some kernel of Humphrey’s, the Court made clear that “[i]f anything more is left of Humphrey’s, we overrule it.”

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 25, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) directing CAISO and CAISO transmission owners to show cause as to why CAISO’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (California Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 195 FERC ¶ 61,214 (2026) (the Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

© 2026 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.