U.S. Dept. of Energy Kicks Off Expansive Energy Sector Supply Chain Review

Dec 2, 2021

Reading Time : 2 min

The Energy Supply Chain RFI arose from President Biden’s Executive Order 14017 (America’s Supply Chains), issued February 24, 2021, Section 4(iv) of which directs the Secretary of Energy to “report on supply chains for the energy sector industrial base” within a year. It “seeks input from all stakeholders involved directly and indirectly in the supply chains of energy, energy systems and technologies, and energy efficiency technologies from raw materials, processed materials, subcomponents, final products, to end-of-life material recovery and recycling—including but not limited to U.S. industry, researchers, academia, local governments, and civil society.” Such input “will inform [DOE’s] efforts in building an energy sector industrial base that is diverse, resilient, and competitive”—characterized by “greater domestic production, a range of supply, built-in redundancies, adequate stockpiles, safe and secure digital networks, and a world-class American manufacturing base and workforce”—all “while meeting economic, national security, and climate objectives.”

DOE focuses on 14 topic areas, including “solar photovoltaic (PV); wind; electric grid, including transformers and high-voltage direct current [transmission]; energy storage; hydropower, including pumped storage hydropower . . . ; nuclear energy; fuel cells and electrolyzers; semiconductors; neodymium magnets; platinum group metals and other catalysts; and carbon capture materials.” Noticeably absent on the generation side are fossil fuel resources, which still comprise a significant portion of the U.S. electricity generation mix. There are also some “crosscutting topics” such as the “energy sector industrial base” in general, as well as “cybersecurity and digital components” (focusing on “firmware, software, virtual platforms and service, data, and industrial control systems”) and “commercialization and competitiveness.”

DOE’s “in-depth assessment” in each topic area is to include:

  • “Mapping the [relevant] supply chains.”
  • “Identifying existing and future threats, risks, and vulnerabilities.”
  • “Identifying major barriers, including financial and commercial, scientific, technical, regulatory and market.”
  • “Identifying conditions needed to help incentivize energy sector companies and communities to both transfer energy manufacturing back to and scale up supply chains in the United States.”
  • “Identifying areas where collaboration between the government and private sector, as well as between government entities (federal, state, local, and Tribal), is necessary to expand the energy industrial base, what private sector leadership might look like in this area, and where or how government can help.”
  • “Identifying specific actions to address threats, risks, and vulnerabilities and help build resilient supply chains.”

DOE asks between 5 and 12 questions on topic, including some with multiple subparts. However, DOE makes clear that respondents are not required to address every topic or question. As such, the Energy Supply Chain RFI provides an opportunity for energy industry stakeholders of all kinds to share with DOE their vision and concerns about myriad supply chain-related issues.

As noted, responses are due by January 15, 2022. DOE encourages online submissions to www.regulations.gov/​docket/​DOE-HQ-2021-0020, with email submission as an alternative. Based on Executive Order 14017’s one-year deadline for the Secretary of Energy’s report on energy sector supply chain issues, it seems that we should expect to see such a report by late February 2022.

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.