Senate Considers Swett and LaCerte Nominations to be FERC Commissioners Amid Reliability and Independence Debates

September 8, 2025

Reading Time : 3 min

By: Stephen J. Hug, Emily P. Mallen, Christopher A. Treanor, Ben N. Reiter, Corban Coffman, Sharmila P. Das, Maria Posada Velasco (Public Law and Policy Fellow)

On September 4, 2025, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee convened a hearing to consider the nominations of Laura Swett and David LaCerte to serve as commissioners at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission). Swett is a former FERC Staff that served as legal and policy advisor to former FERC Chairman Kevin McIntyre and Commission Bernard McNamee. LaCerte is an attorney in private practice that previously held positions at the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board and the Louisiana Department of Veterans Affairs.

If confirmed, Swett would fill the seat vacated by former Chairman Mark Christie, whose term expired on June 30, 2025, while LaCerte would succeed former Chairman Willie Phillips, who resigned in April at the request of the White House. Swett’s term would run through June 30, 2030, and LaCerte’s through June 30, 2026. Confirmation of both nominees would give Republicans a 3-2 majority on the Commission.

Amid recent debates over the independence of agencies such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Federal Reserve, Democrats on the Committee underscored the importance of preserving FERC’s autonomy and protecting its staff from reductions in force. Ranking Member Martin Heinrich (D-NM) stressed that FERC is unique for its statutorily required independence, designed to protect impartial decision-making. He specifically raised concerns about a recent executive order titled, “Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies” (EO 14215), which asserts greater White House control over independent regulatory agencies. Swett affirmed that FERC’s independence is rooted in statute and pledged to base all decisions solely on the law. She also drew on her experience as a former FERC staffer to vouch for protection of the agency’s staff. LaCerte noted that while he would personally welcome a Supreme Court modification of Humphrey’s Executor if revisited, he would “do the utmost of [his] ability under the law to maintain the independence of FERC, a hundred percent.” LaCerte also agreed to protect the agency’s staff.

Alongside independence, senators pressed the nominees on how FERC should address unprecedented demand growth driven by artificial intelligence (AI), data centers and electrification. Swett warned that unmet demand could force data centers abroad, creating national security and economic risks. LaCerte said his approach would be to ask of every decision whether it makes the grid more reliable and affordable. Multiple senators emphasized the urgency of adding resources quickly, with Sen. Angus King (I-ME) noting that wind and solar are both the cheapest and fastest to deploy. Both nominees committed to a technology-neutral approach consistent with the Federal Power Act.

The hearing also highlighted the large backlog of projects awaiting interconnection and the need to expand interstate transmission. Swett noted FERC’s recent interconnection reforms are under judicial review but pledged to work with colleagues on solutions, while LaCerte called the backlog part of a broader set of infrastructure delays facing the energy sector and emphasized collaboration with regional transmission organizations (RTOs), independent system operators (ISOs) and states. Both nominees supported wider deployment of grid-enhancing technologies to maximize existing assets, reduce costs and speed connections.

Looking ahead, Swett’s FERC background may help her secure bipartisan support, while LaCerte may be less likely to attract Democratic backing given concerns about his limited energy experience. Several Democratic senators referenced FERC’s organic act, which requires each commissioner to be “specifically qualified to assess fairly the needs and concerns of all interest affected by federal energy policy.” The nominations advance amid a broader backlog of confirmations in the Senate, leaving the timing uncertain, but members on both sides emphasized the urgency of addressing surging electricity demand, underscoring the need for a fully seated Commission. Akin will continue to monitor the confirmation process and related policy debates over reliability, permitting reform and grid modernization.

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.