From Conditional to Final: DOE Clears CP2 LNG for Non-FTA Exports

October 24, 2025

Reading Time : 2 min

On October 21, 2025, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued a final order (DOE/FECM Order No. 5264-A1) granting Venture Global CP2 LNG, LLC long-term authorization to export up to 1,446 billion cubic feet per year of domestically produced liquefied natural gas (LNG) from its Louisiana facility to countries without a free trade agreement with the United States (Non-FTA Countries). The final order follows a March 2025 Conditional Order,2 which issued while DOE was still completing its review of the agency’s 2024 LNG Export Study.3 The final order confirms that the project’s export volume and term authorization (through December 31, 2050) are unchanged, but provides for a three-year “make-up period” to allow export of any approved volume not shipped during the original term.

The October order reflects several policy updates from the March conditional order. It follows other recent DOE final orders that cite the 2024 LNG Export Study’s findings that the United States has sufficient natural gas supply to support both domestic consumption and export demand, with LNG exports likely to yield net economic benefits, enhance domestic energy security and result in only modest impacts on domestic prices. The October Order deems the environmental analysis in the 2024 LNG Export Study to be irrelevant, instead finding that the DOE’s review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) considers all relevant environmental effects from the proposed exports. DOE applied its NEPA B5.7 categorical exclusion to the project, which limits the scope of the agency’s environmental review to the export of natural gas by marine vessel. DOE cites the Supreme Court’s recent Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, CO to support its use of a categorical exclusion, and the Court’s finding that environmental impacts associated with upstream production and downstream consumption fall outside the scope of its NEPA analysis for this authorization. In sum, the final order signals the DOE’s commitment to advancing U.S. LNG infrastructure under a streamlined regulatory framework that does not place any emphasis on greenhouse gas emissions and environmental justice community impacts, which were hallmarks of DOE policy under former President Biden.

Akin has published several Speaking Energy blog posts about recent DOE activities on LNG exports, including on the finalization of the 2024 LNG Export Study, here, and other export terminal authorizations, here.


1 DOE/FECM Order No. 5264-A, October 21, 2025, “Final Order Granting Long-Term Authorization to Export Liquefied Natural Gas to Non-Free Trade Agreement Nations.”

2 DOE/FECM Order No. 5264, March 19, 2025, “Order Conditionally Granting Long-Term Authorization to Export Liquefied Natural Gas to Non-Free Trade Agreement Nations.”

3 U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management. 2024 LNG Export Study: Energy, Economic, and Environmental Assessment of U.S. LNG Exports. 89 Fed. Reg. 104132 (Dec. 20, 2024). Available at: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/12/20/2024-30370/2024-lng-export-study-energy-economic-and-environmental-assessment-of-us-lng-exports.

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.