FERC Revises Its Regulations Regarding Computation of Time

Feb 11, 2019

Reading Time : 2 min

The Final Rule modifies Rule 2007 to address days when FERC “is closed due to adverse conditions—including inclement weather—even though some official duties may be performed by telework-ready employees.” FERC explains that the change will prevent “unintended Commission action by operation of law,” such as where a pipeline or public utility rate filing would become effective automatically absent a FERC order at the end of a statutory period, and “provides clarity as to filing deadlines and deadlines for action by the Commission.”

Previously, Rule 2007 provided that the last day of any period is included in that period, “unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, day on which the Commission closes due to adverse conditions and does not reopen prior to its official close of business, part-day holiday that affects the Commission, or legal public holiday . . . , in which case the period does not end until the close of the Commission business of the next day which is not” such a day.

FERC explains that Office of Personnel Management regulations promulgated in April 2018 to implement the weather and safety leave provisions of the Administrative Leave Act of 2016 require “employees that are telework-ready continue to perform official duties, even though Federal offices are closed due to severe weather or another emergency situation.” Thus, to avoid confusion when FERC closes due to adverse conditions but some FERC employees continue to perform official duties, FERC revised Rule 2007 to make clear that such a day will not be counted as the last day of the relevant period. FERC explains that, “[i]n such circumstances, employee and public access to the Commission’s physical facilities may be restricted, not all employees may be telework-ready, and not all telework-ready employees may be able to telework due to the adverse conditions.” Accordingly, when FERC is closed due to adverse conditions, its “ability to accept filings and issue orders . . . may be affected,” and “the public’s ability to submit a filing on the last day on which a filing is due may also be restricted”; accordingly, such a day should not be counted as the last day of any relevant period.

Importantly, the changes to Rule 2007 address only the “last day of any time period” (i.e., closures do not otherwise extend any relevant period) and days when FERC closes and does not reopen before 5:00 p.m. ET on that day.

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.