FERC Reups Support for LNG Export Terminals Immediately Prior to Losing Jurisdiction

October 31, 2023

Reading Time : 2 min

By: Emily P. Mallen, Stephen J. Hug, Ben N. Reiter, Angelica Gonzalez (Paralegal)

On October 27, 2023, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued orders on two liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal projects sponsored by Rio Grande LNG, LLC (Rio Grande)1 and Texas LNG Brownsville LLC (Texas LNG)2 under development in Brownsville, Texas. The orders reaffirmed FERC’s April 2023 decisions3 finding that the terminals’ authorizations were not inconsistent with the public interest under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) after challenges to those decisions were filed in May. The genesis of the April 2023 decisions was a remand ordered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit) finding that FERC’s initial authorization of the projects in 2019 was legally deficient.

FERC’s October orders defended its prior decisions not to subject the LNG terminal projects to further scrutiny beyond the two issues that were the court’s remand. Specifically, whether the social cost of greenhouse gases or a similar protocol should be used to determine the significance of the projects’ impact on the environment and the sufficiency of FERC’s underlying analyses on the projects’ impacts on environmental justice communities. FERC also defended its decisions to not issue a supplemental environmental impact statement for either project, either concerning greenhouse gas emissions or environmental justice community impacts, even though the sufficiency of FERC’s review of the projects under the National Environmental Policy Act had been called into question by the D.C. Circuit. The extent of FERC’s legal obligations concerning these issues was borne out in competing separate statements issued by the Commissioners, including a separate dissent by Commissioner Clements and concurrences by Acting Chairman Phillips and Commissioner Christie. An additional concurrence by Commissioner Danly is forthcoming.

FERC watchers have been anticipating the release of these orders after Commissioner Danly publicly called for the agency to issue them on September 21, 2023 at the close of FERC’s public, open monthly meeting. Commissioner Danly urged FERC to take action before the agency lost jurisdiction to do so, as documented in a prior Akin Speaking Energy post. FERC had already missed the NGA’s deadline to issue an order on rehearing within 30 days of a rehearing request being filed with the agency, allowing the challenger to file a lawsuit in federal court seeking judicial review of the underlying FERC order. However, under section 19 of the NGA, FERC had an opportunity to modify or set aside its underlying order before the proceeding’s administrative record was filed with the court. FERC filed administrative records with the D.C. Circuit for both cases on October 30, 2023, thereby forfeiting its jurisdiction, making October 27 the last day it was permitted to act.

Additional information on Rio Grande and Texas LNG can be found here.


1 Rio Grande LNG, LLC, 185 FERC ¶ 61,080 (2023).

2 Texas LNG Brownsville LLC, 185 FERC ¶ 61,079 (2023).

3 See, Texas LNG Brownsville LLC, 183 FERC ¶ 61,047 (2023); Rio Grande LNG, LLC, 185 FERC ¶ 61,046 (2023).

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.