DOE Secretary Uses Rarely Invoked Statutory Authority to Seek Rescission of FERC’s Draft Pipeline Certificate Policy

September 9, 2025

Reading Time : 3 min

On August 29, 2025, Christopher Wright, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) submitted a proposal to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) under section 403 of the Department of Energy Organization Act (DOE Organization Act), asking that FERC terminate its long-running proceeding in Docket No. PL18-1, which addresses proposed updates to its policy statement on the Certification of New Interstate Natural Gas Facilities. The docket resulted in a draft policy statement that has never been finalized, nor relied upon by FERC in a published order, but would require FERC to consider environmental impacts and potential mitigation prior to making a public interest determination under the Natural Gas Act (NGA). The Secretary asks FERC to rescind the draft policy statement in its entirety to remove any uncertainty in gas infrastructure development. Rescission would require FERC to initiate a new docket and develop a new record should it want to reinitiate similar policy changes in the future.

Section 403(a) of the DOE Organization Act allows the Secretary of Energy to “propose rules, regulations, and statements of policy of general applicability with respect to any function within the jurisdiction of the Commission.” While FERC is not required to adopt any DOE proposal, it is required to consider and take final action on any such proposal in an “expeditious manner.” Section 403 was employed by former DOE Secretary Rick Perry under the first Trump administration, in which a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was sent to FERC in September 2017 as part of an effort to prevent coal and nuclear power plant retirements in furtherance of “grid reliability and resiliency.” It has not been used since. Prior to the 2017 request, DOE had not invoked section 403 since 1985.

Secretary Wright’s request is dissimilar from former Secretary Perry’s in that it is not asking FERC to adopt a new rule. Rather, it is asking FERC to withdraw a draft policy that has never been formally implemented. The so-called Draft Updated Certificate Policy Statement arose in a docket first initiated in 2018 during President Trump’s first term by former FERC Chairman Kevin McIntyre, following an informal agreement made by Chairman McIntyre during his Senate confirmation hearing to reexamine FERC’s 1999 Certificate Policy Statement, which FERC follows when reviewing proposed gas pipeline projects. Although thousands of comments were received, the docket’s initial Notice of Inquiry did not result in any formal action by FERC. However, FERC amended and expanded the Notice of Inquiry under former FERC Chairman Richard Glick in February 2021, after President Biden took office, resulting in the issuance of an Updated Certificate Policy Statement in February 2022. The Updated Certificate Policy Statement would have expanded FERC’s public interest inquiry to include the impact of gas infrastructure projects on greenhouse gas emissions and environmental justice communities. However, on March 24, 2022, following political and industry outcry, FERC designated the Updated Certificate Policy Statement as a draft policy statement. It has remained in that form while FERC continues to rely on its 1999 Certificate Policy Statement. Secretary Wright would have the draft policy fully rescinded, in conformance with Trump administration policies, and on grounds that it exceeds FERC’s statutory authority under the Natural Gas Act and National Environmental Policy Act advances bad public policy.

The Secretary asks FERC to act on the request by September 30, 2025. FERC may attempt to meet the deadline and adopt the Secretary’s request, or wait until it has a full complement of commissioners as the nominations of Laura Swett and David LaCerte remain pending. FERC noticed the request on September 2, 2025, and it will accept public comments on the proposal through September 9, 2025. While adoption of the request would not result in any immediate change to FERC policy, it does signal that the DOE intends to be more involved in FERC policy making going forward and may be the first in a string of DOE efforts to reshape energy policy within FERC’s traditional purview.

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.