FERC to EPA: We Are Here to Help on CPP

Jun 2, 2015

Reading Time : 1 min

The first proposal is the so-called “Reliability Safety Valve.”  Under this proposal, the EPA would adopt a clearly defined role for FERC to review a petitioner’s claims that unforeseen or emergency system conditions will result in a violation of FERC-approved reliability standards or in a reserve margin deficiency unless a CPP compliance obligation is adjusted.  The commissioners were clear to note that their role here would not involve assessing whether the petitioner made sufficient efforts to resolve the possible violation or whether there are other ways to resolve the deficiency.  Rather, FERC’s role would be only to “consider whether a specified set of loads, resources and grid facilities would cause a Reliability Standard violation or reserve margin deficiency.”  The commissioners’ letter did not specify the level of deference or consideration that the EPA should give to FERC’s findings.

The commissioners also discussed the possibility of FERC’s role in “Reliability Monitoring and Assistance.”  This type of monitoring process would occur prior to, or in parallel with, the EPA’s review of state CPP carbon reduction plans and would allow FERC to review such plans for an assessment of potential reliability concerns.  The commissioners explained that FERC-regulated Regional Transmission Operators and Independent System Operators, as well as entities such as North American Electric Reliability Council, currently have processes in place to assess the reliability of the grid.  FERC could have these entities use their existing processes to analyze proposed state plans, FERC explained, and then FERC could review the analyses and provide the EPA with formal input on how the state plans affect reliability. The commissioners also contemplated FERC having the ability to request additional or modified analyses or, in limited circumstances, performing analyses itself.

FERC has been proactive thus far in anticipation of the EPA’s final rule. The agency recently held a series of technical conferences focused on how the CPP may affect three aspects of FERC’s jurisdiction: electric reliability, energy infrastructure and wholesale energy markets.  For previous Speaking Energy coverage of the CPP proposal, click here

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

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

Speaking Energy

June 24, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO) directing NYISO and NYISO transmission owners to show cause as to why NYISO’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (New York Independent System Operator, Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,216 (2026) (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.