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

June 23, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO) directing MISO and MISO transmission owners to show cause as to why MISO’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,212 (2026) (Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 23, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. directing PJM and PJM transmission owners to show cause as to why PJM’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 195 FERC ¶ 61,211 (2026) (the Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 22, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) directing SPP and SPP transmission owners to show cause as to why SPP’s tariff should not be unjust and unreasonable (Southwest Power Pool, Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,213 (2026) (Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 18, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued show cause orders under section 206 of the Federal Power Act to PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO), Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP), California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO), ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE) and New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO), together with their transmission owners, directing each region to justify or reform the tariff provisions governing how data centers and other large loads connect to and receive service from the transmission grid. The orders are part of FERC’s broader response to rapidly increasing electricity demand, particularly from data centers and other large loads, and advance the objectives of the Secretary of Energy’s October 2025 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR) by seeking to accelerate “speed to power” while preserving grid reliability, affordability and consumer protections. 

...

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.