FERC Chairman Neil Chatterjee Summarizes Agency Response to COVID-19

Apr 17, 2020

Reading Time : 2 min

Chairman Chatterjee first noted that “ensuring the reliability and security of our nation’s vital energy infrastructure is critical and is [FERC’s] top priority.” With that goal in mind, FERC continues to “do all [it] can to lift regulatory burdens and uncertainty” to allow regulated entities to focus on “critical frontline efforts.” He described his appointment of long-time FERC staff member Caroline Wozniak as “Coronavirus Liaison” and principal point of contact for all industry inquiries regarding the impact of COVID-19 preparations and responses on FERC-jurisdictional activities. He then referenced FERC’s Policy Statement, issued April 2, 2020, regarding FERC’s intent to prioritize the processing of “filings made for the purpose of assuring the business continuity of energy infrastructure,” and commitment to “expeditiously review and act on requests for relief, including, but not limited to, requests for cost recovery necessary to assure their business continuity.”

Chairman Chatterjee then discussed his concern regarding the financial impact of COVID-19 on the energy industry, noting the “need to make sure that we don’t have liquidity concerns once [the pandemic] emergency is over,” and described his April 7, 2020, joint letter with National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners President Brandon Presley to Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell “supporting the extension of Commercial Paper Funding Facility purchasing to [certain] commercial paper programs” to facilitate utilities’ “ready access to short-term debt [needed to] support both the financial stability of those companies and their ability to continue to support the country’s essential infrastructure.”

Other FERC actions Chairman Chatterjee described included: (1) “prioritizing the efficient processing of requests for waiver and other requests for relief” through increased delegation of authority to certain program office directors; (2) increasing flexibility on deadlines for certain required filings; (3) waiving tariff provisions that require in-person meetings; (4) suspending new enforcement audits until July 31, 2020; and (5) accounting for the pandemic in evaluating compliance programs “as part of [FERC staff’s] analysis under [FERC’s] penalty guidelines or as part of an audit for operations.” (In the enforcement context, however, it is important for regulated entities to keep in mind that FERC continues to closely monitor its jurisdictional markets for violations of FERC statutes, rules and orders, such as prohibited market manipulation).

Chairman Chatterjee closed by making clear that FERC “will not second-guess the good faith actions that regulated entities take in the face of this emergency,” and that FERC continues to be in contact with the North American Electric Reliability Corporation and state utility commissions “to ensure that the operators of [the] electric system can primarily focus their resources on safety and on keeping the lights on.”

More information regarding FERC’s response to COVID-19 is available here.

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.