Rule2025-19533
Removal of Regulations Limiting Authorizations To Proceed With Construction Activities Pending Rehearing
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
October 10, 2025
Effective
November 10, 2025
Issuing agencies
Energy DepartmentFederal Energy Regulatory Commission
Abstract
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) removes from its regulations a rule that precludes the issuance of authorizations to proceed with construction activities with respect to natural gas facilities approved pursuant to section 3 or section 7 of the Natural Gas Act for a limited time while certain requests for rehearing are pending before the Commission.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 195 (Friday, October 10, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 195 (Friday, October 10, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48221-48229]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-19533]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
18 CFR Parts 153 and 157
[Docket No. RM25-9-000]
Removal of Regulations Limiting Authorizations To Proceed With
Construction Activities Pending Rehearing
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) removes
from its regulations a rule that precludes the issuance of
authorizations to proceed with construction activities with respect to
natural gas facilities approved pursuant to section 3 or section 7 of
the Natural Gas Act for a limited time while certain requests for
rehearing are pending before the Commission.
DATES: This rule is effective November 10, 2025.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Indigo Brown, Office of the General
Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8505,
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#076e69636e6068296575687069476162756429606871"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e38a8d878a848ccd81918c948da385869180cd848c95">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1. Section 157.23 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
(Commission) regulations provides that, with respect to orders issued
pursuant to sections 3 and 7(c) of the NGA \1\ authorizing the
construction of new natural gas transportation, export, or import
facilities, no authorization to proceed with construction activities
will
[[Page 48222]]
be issued during the periods specified therein. In this final rule, the
Commission amends its regulations to remove Sec. 157.23 and modify
Sec. 153.4 to remove the reference to Sec. 157.23. This action will
advance the Commission's principal statutory mission under the Natural
Gas Act ``to encourage the orderly development of plentiful supplies of
. . . natural gas at reasonable prices.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 15 U.S.C. 717b; 15 U.S.C. 717f(c).
\2\ See Citizens Action Coal. of Ind., Inc. v. FERC, 125 F.4th
229, 244 (D.C. Cir. 2025) (quoting NAACP v. FPC, 425 U.S. 662, 669-
70 (1976)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Background
A. Order No. 871
2. On June 9, 2020, the Commission in Order No. 871 \3\ issued a
final rule amending its regulations to add 18 CFR 157.23, precluding
the issuance of authorizations to proceed with construction of projects
authorized under sections 3 and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA)
during the period for filing requests for rehearing of initial orders,
or while rehearing is pending.\4\ Order No. 871 also revised Sec.
153.4 of the Commission's regulations, which sets forth general
requirements for NGA section 3 applications, to incorporate a cross-
reference to Sec. 157.23. The Commission issued Order No. 871 to
address concerns raised in the then-pending appeal Allegheny Defense
Project v. FERC \5\ before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Limiting Authorizations to Proceed with Construction
Activities Pending Rehearing, Order No. 871, 171 FERC ] 61,201
(2020) (Order No. 871), order on reh'g, Order No. 871-A, 174 FERC ]
61,050, order on reh'g, Order No. 871-B, 175 FERC ] 61,098, order on
reh'g, Order No. 871-C, 176 FERC ] 61,062 (2021).
\4\ Under NGA section 3(e), the Commission is authorized to
grant or deny applications to site, construct, expand, or operate
liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals. Under NGA section 7(c), the
Commission is authorized to issue certificates of public convenience
and necessity for the construction of interstate natural gas
transportation facilities.
\5\ 932 F.3d 940 (D.C. Cir. 2019), and on reh'g en banc, 964
F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (Allegheny).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Following the issuance of Allegheny, in response to requests for
clarification and rehearing of Order No. 871, the Commission in Order
No. 871-A provided interested parties an opportunity to file initial
and reply briefs on the arguments raised on rehearing and specific
questions posed by the Commission.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Order No. 871-A, 174 FERC ] 61,050.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. After review of the briefs filed, the Commission in Order No.
871-B revised Sec. 157.23 to provide that the rule prohibiting the
issuance of construction authorizations pending rehearing would apply
only when a request for rehearing raised issues reflecting opposition
to project construction, operation, or need.\7\ Order No. 871-B also
revised Sec. 157.23 to provide that the rule's restriction on issuing
construction authorizations would expire, if no qualifying request or
rehearing was filed or, if such a request was filed, when (1) the
request was no longer pending (i.e., it had been withdrawn or the
Commission had acted on it), (2) the record of the proceeding was filed
with the court of appeals, or (3) 90 days had passed from the date that
the request might be deemed denied by operation of law under NGA
section 19(a).\8\ Finally, Order No. 871-B adopted a policy of
presumptively staying, on a case-by-case basis where a pipeline
developer has not already acquired all necessary property interests and
where a landowner who would be subject to eminent domain proceedings
protested,\9\ an NGA section 7(c) certificate order during the 30-day
period for seeking rehearing, and pending Commission resolution of any
timely requests for rehearing filed by a landowner, until the earlier
of the date on which the Commission (1) issues a substantive order on
rehearing or otherwise indicates that the Commission will not take
further action, or (2) 90 days following the date that a request for
rehearing may be deemed to have been denied under NGA section
19(a).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Order No. 871-B, 175 FERC ] 61,098 at PP 14, 30.
\8\ Id. PP 26, 30.
\9\ Order No. 871-C, 176 FERC ] 61,062 at P 41 (clarifying that
the stay policy applies to landowners subject to eminent domain).
\10\ Order No. 871-B, 175 FERC ] 61,098 at PP 43-51 (noting at P
51 that the new policy is only presumptive and that the question of
whether to impose a stay will be decided on the circumstances
presented in each particular certificate proceeding).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. In Order No. 871-C, the Commission addressed requests for
rehearing and clarification of Order No. 871-B.\11\ The Commission
modified the discussion but did not change the outcome of Order No.
871-B.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Order No. 871-C, 176 FERC ] 61,062.
\12\ The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA)
and others filed and later withdrew petitions for review of the
Order No. 871 rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. On January 20, 2025, the President issued Executive Order 14154,
seeking to eliminate delays in and streamline the permitting process
for energy infrastructure projects, and noting that it is ``in the
national interest to unleash America's affordable and reliable energy
and natural resources.'' \13\ On the same date, the President issued
Executive Order 14156, which declares a national energy emergency and
prioritizes the expansion of energy infrastructure as a matter of
critical national and economic security.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Exec. Order No. 14,154, 90 FR 8353 (Jan. 20, 2025).
\14\ Exec. Order No. 14,156, 90 FR 8433 (Jan. 20, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. INGAA Petition
7. On April 14, 2025, INGAA filed a petition for rulemaking
requesting that the Commission adopt a rule rescinding Order No. 871,
removing Sec. 157.23 from the regulations, and amending Sec. 153.4,
which relates to applications to authorize liquefied natural gas
facilities under NGA section 3, to remove the reference to Sec.
157.23.\15\ In its petition, INGAA argues that the stakeholder
protections afforded by the D.C. Circuit's decision in Allegheny
rendered the regulations promulgated under Order No. 871
unnecessary.\16\ Specifically, INGAA maintains that Allegheny's holding
\17\ protects stakeholders from the possibility that project
construction may proceed before the completion of the Commission's
review because that decision allows parties to ``seek and receive a
judicial stay of a certificate [or authorization] order as soon as 30
days after a request for rehearing'' has been filed.\18\ INGAA contends
that the current Order No. 871 framework assumes that the Commission
erred in authorizing a project.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ INGAA Petition for Rulemaking (Petition) at 18.
\16\ Id. at 7.
\17\ Allegheny, 964 F.3d 1, 13-17 (holding that parties that
have filed a rehearing request may file a petition for judicial
review of the underlying order immediately after rehearing is deemed
denied).
\18\ INGAA Petition at 7-8.
\19\ Id. at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Additionally, INGAA notes that when creating project schedules,
project developers must work with contractors and vendors to set the
timeframes to accommodate anticipated construction, material
procurement, and environmental compliance requirements, as well as
seasonal constraints.\20\ It argues that Order No. 871's preemptive
prohibition of the issuance of construction authorizations forces
developers to account in their schedules for the maximum amount of time
(150 days) that could be imposed as a result of a potential rehearing
request, even where no eligible rehearing request is filed.\21\ INGAA
avers that Order No. 871 subjects project developers to unnecessary
costs and construction delays regardless of whether developers account
in advance for the potential delays which would be encountered should
an eligible rehearing request be filed or fail to
[[Page 48223]]
consider such potential delays and are forced to make last-minute
schedule changes.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Id.
\21\ Id. at 8-9.
\22\ Id. at 9-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Further, INGAA claims that Order No. 871 increased the number of
rehearing requests, that non-landowner parties have filed most of the
rehearing requests since the promulgation of Order No. 871, and that
the regulation has become a tool to delay authorized projects.\23\
INGAA contends that the interests of project developers and landowners
are unbalanced and that the burdens imposed on developers are not
justified.\24\ INGAA maintains that if the Commission rescinds Order
No. 871 landowners will not be materially impacted because they would
still have statutory and other regulatory protections, such as the
ability to file with the Commission rehearing requests of certificate
and authorization orders and motions to stay the certificate or
authorization order, as well as to seek an emergency judicial stay of
the certificate holder's exercise of eminent domain if needed.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Id. at 12-14. As stated in the NOPR, we note that INGAA has
not provided additional support for these specific claims.
\24\ Id. at 14.
\25\ Id. at 14-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Finally, INGAA states that rescinding Order No. 871 would be
consistent with the Administration's priorities to develop reliable
energy infrastructure.\26\ INGAA argues that the Commission has
previously proposed rules that are justified by federal policies
established in prior Executive Orders.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Id. at 16-17.
\27\ Id. (citing Applications for Permits to Site Interstate
Elec. Transmission Facilities, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 181
FERC ] 61,205, at P 30 (2022); Applications for Permits to Site
Interstate Elec. Transmission Facilities, Order No. 1977, 187 FERC ]
61,069, at P 111 (2024)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Waiver Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
11. On June 18, 2025, the Commission issued an order temporarily
waiving Sec. 157.23 for one year, until June 30, 2026 (Waiver Order).
At the same time, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NOPR), which proposed to permanently remove Sec. 157.23 from its
regulations and revise Sec. 153.4 to eliminate the cross-reference to
Sec. 157.23.\28\ The Commission proposed to remove Sec. 157.23 to
respond to the imperative to remove barriers to the construction of
necessary energy infrastructure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See NOPR, 191 FERC ] 61,208.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. In the NOPR, the Commission noted its broad authority under NGA
section 16 \29\ to rescind regulations as it finds appropriate to carry
out the provisions of the NGA, and its statutory duties under NGA
section 7(e) to issue certificates for proposed pipelines that are
required by the present or future public convenience and necessity and
under NGA section 3 to authorize import or export facilities unless
such facilities are inconsistent with the public interest.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ 15 U.S.C. 717o.
\30\ See NOPR, 191 FERC ] 61,208 at P 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. The Commission recognized that construction of natural gas
infrastructure is a complex process and explained that, due to timing
constraints and other outside factors effecting construction, a
potential 150-day delay in the start of construction could cause
further unforeseen delays that might jeopardize the availability of a
project's capacity or reliability benefits within the timeframe when
they are needed, which could frustrate the objectives of approved
projects.\31\ The Commission acknowledged that there is widespread
recognition that adequate natural gas infrastructure is critical to
meet the increasing natural gas and electric system demand,
particularly during periods of high demand, and to ensure the
reliability of both systems.\32\ The Commission cited several reports
analyzing projected growth in natural gas and electricity demand and
the role of natural gas infrastructure in supporting reliability and
demand, and executive actions that have also recognized resource
adequacy and reliability concerns.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See NOPR, 191 FERC ] 61,208 at P 13.
\32\ Id. PP 14-16.
\33\ Id. PP 14-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. The Commission stated that the ruling in Allegheny provides
safeguards to stakeholders' interests and ensures that parties may seek
to halt the commencement of construction during the pendency of a
rehearing request.\34\ The Commission emphasized that it carefully
considers and balances the alleged harms of a proposed project,
including potential impacts to landowners and communities, against its
benefits before issuing a certificate or authorization and that it will
continue to consider whether additional protections are warranted in
individual proceedings.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ NOPR, 191 FERC ] 61,208 at P 19 (citing Allegheny, 964 F.3d
1, 13-17).
\35\ Id. PP 20-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. In addition to requesting public comments on the NOPR proposal
to eliminate Sec. 157.23 in its entirety, the Commission posed two
specific questions. The Commission sought comment on whether it should
instead revise Sec. 157.23 to (1) limit its scope while maintaining
some protections for certain types of stakeholders or (2) reduce the
time period on the limitation for issuing authorizations to proceed
with construction.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Id. P 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Several entities filed motions to intervene, without
comment.\37\ Comments on the NOPR were due July 24, 2025. In response
to the NOPR, 23 comments were filed. The Commission received 11
comments from various individuals and organizations opposing the
Commission's proposal to remove Sec. 157.23; \38\ and 12 comments from
various entities supporting the removal of Sec. 157.23.\39\ We have
considered these comments in developing this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Motions to intervene were filed by Arizona Corporation
Commission; Symmetry Energy Solutions, LLC; Atmos Energy
Corporation; EQT Energy, LLC; Coterra Energy, Inc.; Cheniere Energy,
Inc.; New England Local Distribution Companies; and Delaware
Riverkeeper Network and Maya Van Rossum (Delaware Riverkeeper).
Intervention is not necessary to obtain party status in a rulemaking
proceeding. See, e.g., Order No. 871-B, 175 FERC ] 61,098, at n.14.
\38\ Commenters that oppose the NOPR include: Marion Freistadt;
Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services; a consortium of
public interest organizations and individuals (Public Interest
Organizations); Robert Feder; Lila Zastrow and Dave Hendrickson;
Diana Dakey; Robert E. Rutkowski; Lakshmi Ford; Institute for Policy
Integrity at New York University School of Law (Institute for Policy
Integrity); PennFuture; Columbia Riverkeeper et. al; and Delaware
Riverkeeper.
\39\ Commenters that support the NOPR include: Arizona
Corporation Commission; Energy Transfer LP; Eastern Shore Natural
Gas Company; American Gas Association; Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC
(Mountain Valley); INGAA, the American Petroleum Institute, and GPA
Midstream Association (INGAA); Cheniere Energy, Inc. (Cheniere
Energy); Kinder Morgan, Inc. (Kinder Morgan); Enbridge Gas
Pipelines; Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP (Boardwalk Pipeline); The
Williams Companies, Inc.; and WBI Energy Transmission, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Discussion
A. Temporary Waiver Order
17. Public Interest Organizations argue that the Waiver Order was,
in essence, an improper rulemaking and that the NOPR offers a post-
promulgation comment period and functions as an attempt to cure the
Commission's failure to engage in notice and comment rulemaking prior
to issuing that order.\40\ They maintain that the Commission's
contemporaneous issuance of the Waiver Order and the NOPR reflect the
Commission's commitment to remove Sec. 157.23 before soliciting public
comment, and therefore, the Commission's rulemaking effort is fatally
flawed.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Public Interest Organizations July 24, 2025 Protest at 20-
21.
\41\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 48224]]
18. Any arguments challenging the Waiver Order are outside the
scope of this rulemaking proceeding, which is entirely separate from
the Waiver Order proceeding. Further, we find the Commission's process
in promulgating this final rule is lawful. In compliance with APA Sec.
553, the Commission provided notice and an opportunity to file comments
in response to the proposal to eliminate Sec. 157.23.\42\ The
Commission's separate finding of good cause to temporarily waive Sec.
157.23 does not reflect a decision to remove the regulation on a
permanent basis. As discussed below, after considering the submitted
comments opposing and supporting the NOPR, and in light of the
perspectives gained during the past four years of practical
implementation, the Commission has determined that removing Sec.
157.23 from its regulations will reduce the construction delays which
have resulted from the regulation's limitation on the issuance of
construction authorizations and hampered the timely development of
natural gas infrastructure, and serve to promote and expedite efficient
energy development, furthering the Commission's statutory mission under
the NGA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See 5 U.S.C. 553; NOPR, 191 FERC ] 61,208.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Justification for Removing Sec. 157.23
19. Several commenters oppose the NOPR, arguing that the Commission
failed to provide evidence justifying the proposal to remove Sec.
157.23 and raising concerns regarding the Commission's statutory duties
under the NGA, the Commission's alleged reliance on Executive Order
14156, and energy demand and reliability projections. The Commission
finds that removal of Sec. 157.23 from its regulations is warranted to
reduce unnecessary delays to constructing needed natural gas
infrastructure and safeguards available to impacted stakeholders,
including Allegheny's assurance that parties are able to seek judicial
review immediately after rehearing is deemed denied and other
protections provided by the Commission's case-by-case evaluation of
proposed projects.
1. Reliance on the Allegheny Decision
20. Supporting commenters argue that Allegheny mooted the concerns
that originally motivated the issuance of Order No. 871 and that
landowners have sufficient protections without Sec. 157.23.\43\ They
contend that Allegheny ensured that stakeholders are able to seek
judicial review or a stay immediately following a deemed denial of
rehearing.\44\ Supporting commenters maintain that the stakeholders
also have additional protections, including the Commission's balancing
test and pre-filing requirements under the NGA, the ability to seek a
stay from the Commission, and the requirement to obtain all necessary
federal and state approvals prior to commencing construction.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ See, e.g., INGAA July 24, 2025 Comments at 2, 8-12;
Boardwalk Pipeline July 24, 2025 Comments at 10-11; Energy Transfer
July 24, 2025 Comments at 2-3, 4, 11-13; Cheniere Energy July 24,
2025 Comments at 6; Kinder Morgan July 24, 2025 Comments at 11-13.
\44\ The Williams Companies, Inc. July 24, 2025 Comments at 5-6;
Cheniere July 24, 2025 Comments at 6.
\45\ INGAA July 24, 2025 Comments at 22-23; Cheniere July 24,
2025 Comments at 6; Mountain Valley July 24, 2025 Comments at 8;
Kinder Morgan July 24, 2025 Comments at 11-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Opposing commenters argue that the decision in Allegheny does
not justify the removal of Sec. 157.23.\46\ They emphasize that the
Commission failed to explain its departure from its prior findings that
both Order No. 871 and the ruling in Allegheny are necessary as they
offer different protections.\47\ Opposing commenters state that Order
No. 871 addressed serious concerns posed by the possibility of
construction proceeding prior to the completion of the Commission's
review, while Allegheny offered timely judicial review for parties
opposing certificate or authorization orders.\48\ Public Interest
Organizations maintain that due to the timing of the court's review of
Commission orders Allegheny does not provide enough protection for
stakeholders because a court may not act promptly enough to prevent
permanent destruction or the exercise of eminent domain, or to issue a
stay.\49\ They note that Allegheny is not a changed circumstance
because the Commission issued rehearing orders of Order No. 871
following that decision and that the Commission's failure to repeal
Order No. 871 after Allegheny demonstrates the importance of Sec.
157.23.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ See Public Interest Organizations July 24, 2025 Protest at
37; Delaware Riverkeeper July 24, 2025 Comments at 9-10.
\47\ See Public Interest Organizations July 24, 2025 Protest at
38-39; Delaware Riverkeeper July 24, 2025 Comments at 9-10.
\48\ See Public Interest Organizations July 24, 2025 Protest at
38-39; Delaware Riverkeeper July 24, 2025 Comments at 9-10.
\49\ Public Interest Organizations July 24, 2025 Protest at 37-
38.
\50\ Id. at 39-40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. In issuing Order No. 871, the Commission considered the impacts
that commencing construction during the pendency of a rehearing request
would have on affected landowners and members of communities that would
be affected by project construction.\51\ While at that time the
Commission determined that Order No. 871 provided necessary protections
along with Allegheny's assurance of timely judicial review of initial
Commission orders, we now conclude that the protection offered by
judicial review and the potential for other case-by-case relief
discussed further below \52\ are sufficient given that the projects
subject to 157.23 have been found to be needed and in the public
interest following a fulsome agency review that includes environmental
review and consideration of alternatives. Based on these considerations
and given the Commission's command pursuant to the NGA to encourage the
orderly development of plentiful supplies of natural gas \53\ the
Commission concludes that Sec. 157.23 is no longer in the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ See Order No. 871-B, 175 FERC ] 61,098 at P 15.
\52\ Infra PP 40, 43-46 (discussing other protections, including
the Commission's evaluation of each individual project application,
the ability to petition the Commission for a stay, and the
presumptive stay policy established in Order No 871-B).
\53\ NAACP v. FPC, 425 U.S. at 670.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. We note that many of the Public Interest Organizations'
concerns are addressed by existing landowner protections. The
Commission will continue to consider stay requests from landowners on a
case-by-case basis, as well as continue the presumptive stay policy
established in Order No. 871-B. The presumptive stay policy
specifically protects directly affected landowners who would be subject
to eminent domain under NGA section 7. In Order No. 871-B, the
Commission recognized that ``eminent domain is among the most
significant actions that a government may take with regard to an
individual's private property,'' and that Allegheny alone does not
preclude the harm that can arise when developers initiate eminent
domain proceedings following the issuance of a certificate order.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ See Order No. 871-B, 175 FERC ] 61,098 at P 47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. Further, as clarified by Allegheny, affected landowners and
stakeholders that have sought rehearing of an initial order are able to
seek judicial review as soon as 30 days after rehearing is deemed
denied, and to seek more immediate injunctive relief.\55\ Stakeholders
may also file with the Commission a motion for a stay of the initial
certificate or authorization order.
[[Page 48225]]
Based on these protections, we find that the removal of Sec. 157.23 is
warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Allegheny, 964 F.3d at 13-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Resource Adequacy and Reliability Concerns
25. Supporting commenters argue that Sec. 157.23 of the
Commission's regulations hinders the additional pipeline infrastructure
needed to serve growing electricity demand.\56\ They state that the
U.S. is facing unprecedented increases in natural gas and electricity
demand from the residential, manufacturing, commercial, and
transportation sectors and artificial intelligence-driven growth, and
contend that infrastructure development is necessary to ensure energy
reliability and affordability.\57\ INGAA emphasizes that additional
generation capacity is critical to the nation's energy security needs,
particularly given the development of data centers to advance
artificial intelligence.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ See, e.g., INGAA July 24, 2025 Comments at 3, 20-21; Energy
Transfer July 24, 2025 Comments at 10-11; The Williams Companies,
Inc. July 24, 2025 Comments at 7-9.
\57\ The Williams Companies, Inc. July 24, 2025 Comments at 7-8;
Kinder Morgan July 24, 2024 Comments at 3, Enbridge Gas Pipelines
July 24, 2025 Comments at 2; WBI Energy Transmission, Inc. July 24,
2025 Comments at 3-4.
\58\ See INGAA July 24, 2025 Comments at 3, 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
26. Opposing commenters express concerns regarding the Commission's
reliance on natural gas and electricity demand projections and
reliability concerns to justify its proposal and argue that it is
unclear how the removal of Sec. 157.23 would ease resource adequacy
constraints.\59\ Opposing commenters note that the Commission failed to
consider that the U.S. Energy Information Administration's (EIA) Short-
Term Outlook \60\ projected that, in 2025, the percentage of renewable
energy resources supporting electric generation is increasing while the
percentage of natural gas doing so is decreasing.\61\ Public Interest
Organizations acknowledge the expected growth for domestic electricity
demand, but argue that due to the uncertainty surrounding data centers
there is uncertainty regarding the degree to which both demand for
electricity, generally, and natural gas to support electric generation,
specifically, will increase.\62\ Opposing commenters dispute the
reports that INGAA cited in its Petition and the Commission cited in
the NOPR, arguing that they do not provide evidence that expanded
pipeline capacity is the optimal solution to ensure and improve
reliability and that the reports indicate that the rate of natural gas
demand increase is lowering from previous years.\63\ They contend that
the Commission does not provide evidence that the increasing energy
demand constitutes an emergency or that the current pace of natural gas
infrastructure additions would fail to meet such demand.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ See Public Interest Organizations July 24, 2025 Protest at
26, 30; Institute for Policy Integrity July 23, 2025 Comments.
\60\ See EIA, Short-Term Energy Outlook (May 6, 2025), <a href="https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo">https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo</a> (accessed Sept. 16, 2025);
\61\ See Public Interest Organizations July 24, 2025 Protest at
27-28; Diana Dakey July 21, 2025 Comments.
\62\ Public Interest Organizations July 24, 2025 Protest at 28-
29, 33-34.
\63\ See Public Interest Organizations July 24, 2025 Protest at
31-32; Institute for Policy Integrity July 23, 2025 Comments at 2-4.
\64\ See Public Interest Organizations July 24, 2025 Protest at
32-33; Delaware Riverkeeper July 24, 2025 Comments at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
27. Opposing commenters argue that given the alleged uncertainty
regarding natural gas and electricity demand, removing Sec. 157.23
could lead to overbuilding infrastructure. The Institute for Policy
Integrity urges the Commission to conduct its own updated analysis of
existing infrastructure and current projections for load growth and
system needs prior to concluding that widespread infrastructure
expansion is necessary.\65\ It maintains that a range of operational
and market reforms to increase the effective utilization of existing
gas and electricity systems, along with targeted infrastructure
expansion are critical to improving reliability.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ Institute for Policy Integrity July 23, 2025 Comments 7-8.
\66\ Id. at 4-6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
28. Section 157.23 is a procedural regulation, delaying the
commencement of construction of projects that the Commission has
already found to be in the public interest for a period of time pending
consideration of certain requests for rehearing. Despite comments
suggesting the contrary, it is not the mechanism by which the
Commission determines whether there is a need for additional energy
infrastructure. The Commission continues to evaluate proposed projects
under the existing standards in NGA sections 3 and 7, as appropriate.
Therefore, the Commission need not find that there is an energy
infrastructure emergency in order to conclude that Sec. 157.23 is not
necessary to protect stakeholders. Regarding the NGA's mandate to
oversee the orderly development of the natural gas grid, the Commission
recognizes that the projected natural gas and electric system demand
requires natural gas infrastructure. Moreover, the reports estimating
that the percentage of natural gas supplying electric generation will
decrease \67\ do not negate the interdependence of natural gas supplies
and electric generation. Even though more renewable energy resources,
such as wind and solar, are supplying electric generation, the electric
power sector has relied on natural gas over the past decades and
continues to do so, which leads to increased interdependence.\68\
Accordingly, an increase in electricity demand, without sufficient
natural gas supplies and interstate transportation infrastructure to
support such demand, could impact grid reliability even if renewable
energy source generation increases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ EIA, EIA Expects Record U.S. Natural Gas Consumption in
2025 (Aug. 25, 2025), <a href="https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=65984">https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=65984</a> (accessed Sept. 16, 2025).
\68\ See NERC, Draft Electric-Natural Gas Strategy Report (Aug.
2025), <a href="https://www.nerc.com/comm/RSTCReviewItems/1_08_Electricity_Natural_Gas_Strategy%20Draft.pdf">https://www.nerc.com/comm/RSTCReviewItems/1_08_Electricity_Natural_Gas_Strategy%20Draft.pdf</a> (accessed Sept.
16, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
29. Domestic natural gas consumption, natural gas exports, and
demand for electricity are expected to increase.\69\ The U.S.
Department of Energy reports increased electricity demand due to the
development of new manufacturing, re-industrialization of the U.S.
economy, and the growing development of data centers to support
artificial intelligence--and emphasizes that the nation's power grid
may be unable to meet projected demand, while maintaining a reliable
grid and low costs for consumers.\70\ As stated in the NOPR, there are
growing concerns regarding insufficient gas pipeline capacity,\71\
partially due to the retirement of dispatchable generation
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ See EIA, Short-Term Energy Outlook (May 6, 2025), <a href="https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo">https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo</a> (accessed Sept. 16, 2025); EIA, EIA
Expects Record U.S. Natural Gas Consumption in 2025 (Aug. 25, 2025),
<a href="https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=65984">https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=65984</a> (accessed
Sept. 16, 2025).
\70\ U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Resource Adequacy Report,
at 1 (July 7, 2025), <a href="https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/DOE%20Final%20EO%20Report%20%28FINAL%20JULY%207%29.pdf">https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/DOE%20Final%20EO%20Report%20%28FINAL%20JULY%207%29.pdf</a>
(accessed Sept. 16, 2025).
\71\ NOPR, 191 FERC ] 61,208 at P 16; NERC, 2024 Long-Term
Reliability Assessment, 8 (2024), <a href="https://www.nerc.com/pa/RAPA/ra/Reliability%20Assessments%20DL/NERC_Long%20Term%20Reliability%20Assessment_2024.pdf">https://www.nerc.com/pa/RAPA/ra/Reliability%20Assessments%20DL/NERC_Long%20Term%20Reliability%20Assessment_2024.pdf</a> (accessed Sept.
16, 2025); Federal-State Current Issues Collaborative, <a href="https://www.ferc.gov/federal-state-current-issues-collaborative">https://www.ferc.gov/federal-state-current-issues-collaborative</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 48226]]
sources and the lack of comparable replacement capacity.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ DOE, Resource Adequacy Report, 1 (July 7, 2025), <a href="https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/DOE%20Final%20EO%20Report%20%28FINAL%20JULY%207%29.pdf">https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/DOE%20Final%20EO%20Report%20%28FINAL%20JULY%207%29.pdf</a> (accessed
Sept. 16, 2025); NERC, 2024 Long-Term Reliability Assessment, 8
(2024), <a href="https://www.nerc.com/pa/RAPA/ra/Reliability%20Assessments%20DL/NERC_Long%20Term%20Reliability%20Assessment_2024.pdf">https://www.nerc.com/pa/RAPA/ra/Reliability%20Assessments%20DL/NERC_Long%20Term%20Reliability%20Assessment_2024.pdf</a> (accessed Sept.
16, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
30. Reports recommend several measures including coordination among
utilities, grid operators, regulators and policymakers, new analyses to
evaluate future reliability risks, and infrastructure development.\73\
We continue to find that ensuring the timely development of sufficient
natural gas pipeline capacity is critical to addressing natural gas and
electricity system reliability and resource adequacy concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ DOE, Resource Adequacy Report, 1-2 (July 7, 2025), <a href="https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/DOE%20Final%20EO%20Report%20%28FINAL%20JULY%207%29.pdf">https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/DOE%20Final%20EO%20Report%20%28FINAL%20JULY%207%29.pdf</a> (accessed
Sept. 16, 2025); NERC, 2024 Long-Term Reliability Assessment, 10
(2024), <a href="https://www.nerc.com/pa/RAPA/ra/Reliability%20Assessments%20DL/NERC_Long%20Term%20Reliability%20Assessment_2024.pdf">https://www.nerc.com/pa/RAPA/ra/Reliability%20Assessments%20DL/NERC_Long%20Term%20Reliability%20Assessment_2024.pdf</a> (accessed Sept.
16, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
31. Opposing commenters' concerns that adopting the NOPR proposal
will result in overbuilding pipeline infrastructure are misplaced. The
removal of Sec. 157.23 would not lead to overbuilding as the
regulation only prevented the start of construction of projects
approved under NGA section 3 or section 7 for a period of time during
the pendency of a rehearing request. Given that the Commission only
authorizes projects consistent with its statutory mandates, i.e., those
found to be required by the public convenience and necessity or not
inconsistent with the public interest, there is no risk of overbuilding
gas infrastructure.
3. Executive Orders
32. Supporting commenters generally argue that the regulation is
inconsistent with federal policy, including Executive Order 14154 and
Executive Order 14156, to streamline energy infrastructure development
and eliminate delays.\74\ Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Seven
County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, commenters argue that
recent judicial decisions signal a government-wide effort to expand
energy infrastructure.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ See, e.g., INGAA July 24, 2025 Comments at 17-18; Boardwalk
Pipeline July 24, 2025 Comments at 5, 10; Energy Transfer July 24,
2025 Comments at 2, 9-11; Kinder Morgan, July 24, 2025 Comments at
4-5.
\75\ See INGAA July 24, 2025 Comments at 18-19 (citing Seven
Cnty. Infrastructure Coal. v. Eagle Cnty., 145 S. Ct. 1497 (2025));
Kinder Morgan July 24, 2025 Comments at 5; Enbridge Gas Pipelines
July 24, 2025 Comments at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
33. Opposing commenters claim that the Commission erroneously
relied on Executive Order 14156 to justify the removal of Sec.
157.23.\76\ Specifically, Public Interest Organizations argue that the
Executive Order neither provides sufficient evidence to support the
declaration of an energy emergency nor clarifies the specific nature of
the alleged emergency, and that the Commission validates the alleged
energy emergency without justification.\77\ They urge that compliance
with Executive Order 14156 is voluntary, as agencies may lawfully
implement executive orders only so long as they also abide by their
statutory duties.\78\ Public Interest Organizations maintain that
complying with the Executive Order violates what they characterize as
the NGA's mandate barring the Commission from certifying unnecessary
facilities.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ See, e.g., Public Interest Organizations July 24, 2025
Protest at 23-24, 30; Diana Dakey July 21, 2025 Comments; PennFuture
July 24, 2025 Comments.
\77\ Public Interest Organizations July 24, 2025 Protest at 24-
25.
\78\ Id. at 36.
\79\ Id. at 37 (citing 15. U.S.C. 717f(e)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
34. While the Commission noted executive actions, including
Executive Order 14156 and Executive Order 14154, in the NOPR,\80\ they
are not the primary basis for Commission's decision. In proposing to
remove Sec. 157.23, the Commission considered (1) its broad statutory
authority to make and rescind any regulations as it may find
appropriate; (2) its statutory obligation to encourage the orderly
development of natural gas supplies; (3) the potential 150-day delay
that Sec. 157.23 imposes; and (4) other protections for stakeholders'
interests, including the availability of judicial review and
consideration of alleged harms during the NGA sections 3 and 7
authorization process.\81\ Additionally, the Commission also noted (1)
several reports emphasizing the increase in natural gas and electricity
system demand, the expanded capacity necessary to meet such demand, and
the resultant reliability concerns; and (2) executive action
recognizing the resource adequacy and reliability concerns. The
Commission did not rely on compliance with executive policy to justify
the regulation's removal, rather it discussed the Executive Orders as
evidence that the pressing resource adequacy and system reliability
concerns have been widely recognized.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ See NOPR, 191 FERC ] 61,208 at P 17.
\81\ See id. PP 12-21.
\82\ See id. P 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
35. The Commission finds that the removal of Sec. 157.23 is
consistent with Commission's command pursuant to the NGA to facilitate
the orderly development of natural gas supplies.\83\ By removing the
blanket delays in Sec. 157.23, the Commission ensures natural gas
infrastructure projects that it has determined to be required by the
public convenience and necessity or not inconsistent with the public
interest \84\ may proceed in a timely manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ See Citizens Action Coal. of Ind., Inc. v. FERC, 125 F.4th
at 244 (quoting NAACP v. FPC, 425 U.S. at 669-70).
\84\ See 15 U.S.C. 717f(e), 717b(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Impacts of Delay
36. Supporting commenters generally argue that Sec. 157.23 unduly
delays the construction of approved projects.\85\ Along with timing
constraints related to weather and certain species, Cheniere Energy
notes that the uncertainty resulting from a potential 150-day delay
could result in contractual impacts on project sponsors, such as
obligations and deadlines established in offtake sale and purchase
agreements or Engineering Procurement and Construction agreements for
LNG projects.\86\ Cheniere Energy emphasizes that these contractual
impacts could also lead to increased costs.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ See, e.g., Arizona Corporation Commission July 8, 2025
Comments at 3-4; The Williams Companies, Inc. July 24, 2025 Comments
at 2-5; American Gas Association July 24, 2025 Comments at 4; Energy
Transfer July 24, 2024 Comments at 5-7.
\86\ Cheniere Energy July 24, 2025 Comments at 9-10.
\87\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
37. Opposing commenters aver that any harm caused by alleged
construction delays or costs to project sponsors is outweighed by the
benefits and protections provided by Sec. 157.23.\88\ Citing Order No.
871-B, Public Interest Organizations contend that project sponsors do
not have a right to the issuance of construction authorizations within
a specific timeframe.\89\ They argue that construction delays are of
little consequence because, prior to Order No. 871, project sponsors
had to account for time uncertainty regarding order issuance and,
following order issuance, sponsors may conduct certain pre-construction
activities to develop the project while waiting for a construction
authorization.\90\ Delaware
[[Page 48227]]
Riverkeeper argues that the Commission failed to explain why a
potential 150-day delay prevents the construction of natural gas
infrastructure.\91\ Public Interest Organizations argue that the
Commission failed to provide evidence that Order No. 871 became a tool
for stakeholders and parties seeking rehearing to stop or delay
construction.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ See Public Interest Organizations July 24, 2025 Protest at
42-43; Delaware Riverkeeper July 24, 2025 Comments at 10-11;
PennFuture July 24, 2025 Comments.
\89\ Public Interest Organizations July 24, 2025 Protest at 41.
\90\ Id. at 42-43
\91\ Delaware Riverkeeper July 24, 2025 Comments at 10-11.
\92\ Public Interest Organizations July 24, 2025 Protest at 44-
45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
38. In response to the specific questions posed in the NOPR,
supporting commenters argue that the Commission should fully rescind
Sec. 157.23 rather than revise the regulation to reduce the time
period for issuing construction authorizations because such revision
would still cause delays and allow project opponents to use the
regulation to delay authorized projects.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ Id. at 12, 15-16; Energy Transfer July 24, 2024 Comments at
15; INGAA July 24, 2025 Comments at 22-24; Mountain Valley July 24,
2025 Comments at 4-7. We note that, in the NOPR, the Commission did
not adopt INGAA's statement that Sec. 157.23 has become a tool to
delay authorized projects. See supra note 23; NOPR, 191 FERC ]
61,208 at n.23. Indeed, we note that INGAA and other supporting
commenters have not provided additional support for these specific
claims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
39. We find that preventing delays in the commencement of
construction of projects that have been found to be in the public
interest is an effective step in addressing the resource adequacy and
reliability concerns associated with the projected increase in natural
gas and electricity system demand.
40. While project sponsors will always be faced with some degree of
unpredictability, such as the timeframe for obtaining federal and state
approvals, removing Sec. 157.23 eliminates one, potentially five-
month, delay from the process and will increase the potential that
natural gas capacity additions will be available when needed to meet
increasing natural gas and electricity system demand and maintain and
improve the reliability of such systems. Further, the Commission finds
that it is no longer necessary to impose such a delay given the other
protections available to landowners and stakeholders, including (1) the
Commission's ability to consider stays on a case-by-case basis and (2)
the availability of both judicial review, which, after Allegheny,
parties may now seek more promptly following an initial order, and
judicial stays.
D. Impacts of Expedited Construction
41. Generally, opposing commenters express concerns regarding
potential adverse impacts to stakeholders, including environmental and
cultural impacts, increased costs, and safety concerns, of approved
projects that commence construction during the pendency of a rehearing
request, and the potential exercise of eminent domain.\94\ They argue
that removal of Sec. 157.23 would erode public trust in the regulatory
process and undermine the rights of affected communities, particularly
communities with environmental justice concerns and non-English
speaking communities.\95\ Delaware Riverkeeper notes that Order No. 871
was promulgated for the protection of landowners and other stakeholders
due to increased interest and participation of community members, non-
governmental organizations, property rights advocates, and governmental
entities.\96\ It contends that removing Sec. 157.23 assumes that in
all cases that the Commission's initial certificate or authorization
order will be correct and that parties seeking rehearing would not
present new information or arguments worth considering before
construction begins.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ See, e.g., Delaware Riverkeeper July 24, 2025 Comments at
13; Diana Dakey July 21, 2025 Comments; Columbia Riverkeeper et. al
July 24, 2025 Comments; Robert Feder July 21, 2025 Comments; Robert
E. Rutkowski July 22, 2025 Comments; PennFuture July 24, 2025
Comments; Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services July 7, 2025
Comments; Lakshmi Ford July 22, 2025 Comments.
\95\ PennFuture July 24, 2025 Comments; Texas Environmental
Justice Advocacy Services July 7, 2025 Comments.
\96\ Delaware Riverkeeper July 24, 2025 Comments at 12-13
(quoting Order No. 871, 171 FERC ] 61,201 at P 11) (quotations
omitted).
\97\ Delaware Riverkeeper July 24, 2025 Comments at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
42. We emphasize that natural gas infrastructure projects subject
to Sec. 157.23 have been found to be needed and in the public interest
following a fulsome agency review that requires that the Commission
consider concerns raised by all stakeholders. Although Commission
orders are the ``product of expert judgment which carries a presumption
of validity,'' \98\ when the Commission receives a rehearing request,
it considers all properly raised arguments and evidence on the record
to determine whether the initial order must be reconsidered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ FPC v. Hope Nat. Gas Co., 320 U.S. 591, 602 (1944).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
43. While the Commission previously sought to ensure the
construction of an approved natural gas project will not commence until
the Commission has acted upon the merits of any rehearing request,\99\
in light of the reliability and expediency concerns discussed, this
blanket approach has become overly broad. Based on our statutory
command pursuant to the NGA and the Commission's extensive review
before issuing a certificate, the default should be for certificate
orders to go into effect absent case-specific reasons to the contrary.
We conclude that existing judicial and Commission remedies provide
sufficient avenues for those case-specific inquiries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ Order No. 871-B, 175 FERC ] 61,098 at P 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
44. Further, during its evaluation of each individual NGA section 3
or section 7 project application, the Commission will consider what
additional protections, such as mitigation measures, are warranted
during project construction and operation on a case-by-case basis.
Project developers may not commence construction on an approved project
until they have complied with the required conditions stipulated in a
section 3 authorization or section 7 certificate order \100\ and
provided documentation demonstrating that they have received all
applicable state and federal authorizations or that such authorizations
have been waived.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ The Commission has broad authority to condition
certificates for interstate pipelines on ``such reasonable terms and
conditions as the public convenience and necessity may require.'' 15
U.S.C. 717f(e); see also, e.g., ANR Pipeline Co. v. FERC, 876 F.2d
124, 129 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (noting the Commission's ``extremely
broad'' conditioning authority).
\101\ Order No. 871-B, 175 FERC ] 61,098 at PP 41-42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Presumptive Stay Policy
45. Several commenters request that the Commission clarify, revise,
or rescind its presumptive stay policy. Commenters argue that the
policy is contrary to section 19(c) of the NGA,\102\ creates regulatory
uncertainty and promotes delays in the section 7 certificate
process,\103\ and is unnecessary given the considerations and
protections under the NGA.\104\ Boardwalk Pipeline argues that, if the
Commission retains the policy, it should revise the policy to ensure
that the stay will not extend beyond the date that a landowner's
rehearing request is deemed denied.\105\ INGAA requests that the
Commission clarify whether it will apply a stay only where a landowner
files a motion for a stay and the
[[Page 48228]]
traditional standards for a stay are met.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ Boardwalk Pipeline July 24, 2025 Comments at 12-17; Kinder
Morgan July 24, 2025 Comments at 9-11.
\103\ INGAA July 24, 2025 Comments at 24-27; Kinder Morgan July
24, 2025 Comments at 9-11.
\104\ INGAA July 24, 2025 Comments at 24-27; Boardwalk Pipeline
July 24, 2025 Comments at 12-17.
\105\ Boardwalk Pipeline July 24, 2025 Comments at 14.
\106\ INGAA July 24, 2025 Comments at 24-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
46. We decline commenters' requests to clarify, revise, or rescind
the case-by-case application of the presumptive stay policy. As stated
in Order No. 871, nothing in NGA section 19(c) precludes the Commission
from determining that a stay of an individual certificate order is
warranted.\107\ The presumptive stay policy applies to only a limited
subset of parties in NGA section 7 proceedings on a case-by-case basis,
and it does not apply at all in section 3 proceedings.\108\
Specifically, the policy only applies to protect landowners who meet
all of the following criteria, and subject to case-by-case
considerations: (1) the landowner would be subject to federal eminent
domain proceedings due to the Commission's certificate order, because
the landowner owns property for which the pipeline developer has not
already acquired all necessary property interests; and (2) the
landowner has intervened and protested the certificate proceeding.\109\
In Order No. 871-B and Order No. 871-C, the Commission also explained
our process for applying the presumptive stay policy on a case-by-case
basis.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ Order No. 871-C, 176 FERC ] 61,062 at P 39.
\108\ Commission authorizations under NGA section 3 do not
confer federal eminent domain authority to the applicant. See Order
No. 871-B, 175 FERC ] 61,098 at P 46 n.95.
\109\ See id. P 43; Order No. 871-C, 176 FERC ] 61,062 at P 33.
\110\ Order No. 871-C, 176 FERC ] 61,062 at PP 33, 38; Order No.
871-B, 175 FERC ] 61,098 at PP 43-51. The Commission has
affirmatively directed a presumptive stay in four orders issuing
section 7 certificates. See Transcon. Gas Pipe Line Co., LLC, 182
FERC ] 61,006 (2023), N. Nat. Gas Co., 178 FERC ] 61,203 (2022),
Spire Storage W. LLC, 179 FERC ] 61,123 (2022), Gulf S. Pipeline
Co., LLC, 181 FERC ] 61,145 (2022); see also Transcon. Gas Pipe Line
Co., LLC, 182 FERC ] 61,091 (2023) (order lifting presumptive stay).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Commission Determination
47. In this final rule, the Commission removes Sec. 157.23 from
its regulations and revises Sec. 153.4 to eliminate the cross-
reference to Sec. 157.23 to reduce construction delays resulting from
the regulation's limitation on the issuance of construction
authorizations, as well as to promote and expedite efficient energy
development and ensure that there is sufficient natural gas
infrastructure to timely address resource adequacy and reliability
concerns. In light of the protections provided by Allegheny and the
Commission's evaluation of a proposed project's alleged harms in NGA
section 3 and section 7 proceedings, we find that Sec. 157.23 is no
longer necessary.
III. Information Collection Statement
48. The Paperwork Reduction Act \111\ requires each federal agency
to seek and obtain the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval
before undertaking a collection of information (i.e., reporting,
recordkeeping, or public disclosure requirements) directed to ten or
more persons or contained in a rule of general applicability. OMB
regulations require approval of certain information collection
requirements contained in final rules published in the Federal
Register.\112\ This final rule does not contain any information
collection requirements. The Commission is therefore not required to
submit this rule to OMB for review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521.
\112\ See 5 CFR 1320.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Environmental Analysis
49. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental
Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may
have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.\113\ The
Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from this
requirement as not having a significant effect on the human
environment, including the promulgation of rules that are clarifying,
corrective, or procedural, or that do not substantially change the
effect of legislation or the regulations being amended.\114\ This final
rule removes Sec. 157.23 from the Commission's regulations and revises
Sec. 153.4 to remove the cross-reference to Sec. 157.23. Because the
final rule is procedural in nature and falls within this categorical
exclusion, preparation of an Environmental Assessment or an
Environmental Impact Statement is not required. Further, we note that
this final rule only changes the potential construction commencement
date for natural gas projects, and such a change would not alter the
environmental effects of a project constructed and operated in
compliance with its certificate or authorization order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ Reguls. Implementing the Nat'l Env't Pol'y Act of 1969,
Order No. 486, 41 FERC ] 61,284 (1987).
\114\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Regulatory Flexibility Act
50. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \115\ generally
requires a description and analysis of proposed rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The RFA mandates consideration of regulatory alternatives that
accomplish the stated objectives of a proposed rule and minimize any
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.\116\ In lieu of preparing a regulatory flexibility analysis,
an agency may certify that a proposed rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.\117\ The
Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Size Standards develops
the numerical definition of a small business.\118\ The SBA has
established a size standard for pipelines transporting natural gas,
stating that a firm is small if its annual receipts (including its
affiliates) are less than $41.5 million.\119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
\116\ Id. 603(c).
\117\ Id. 605(b).
\118\ 13 CFR 121.101.
\119\ 13 CFR 121.201, subsection 486.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
51. This final rule applies to entities, a small number of which
may be small businesses, that receive Commission authorization to
construct new natural gas transportation, export, or import facilities
under section 3 or 7 of the NGA. However, the final rule has no adverse
effect on these entities, regardless of their status as a small entity
or not, as the rule imposes no action or requirement on those entities.
Instead, the rule removes a time-limited prohibition on the issuance of
authorizations to proceed with construction activities while rehearing
is pending. Accordingly, pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, the
Commission certifies that this final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
VI. Document Availability
52. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (<a href="http://www.ferc.gov">http://www.ferc.gov</a>).
53. From the Commission's Home Page on the internet, this
information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is
available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing,
printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type
the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in
the docket number field.
54. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-
502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fd9b988f9e9293919493988e888d8d928f89bd9b988f9ed39a928b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="33555641505c5d5f5a5d56404643435c414773555641501d545c45">[email protected]</span></a>, or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
[[Page 48229]]
8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. Email the Public Reference Room at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5b2b2e3937323875293e3d3e293e35383e293434361b3d3e2938753c342d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="58282d3a34313b762a3d3e3d2a3d363b3d2a373735183e3d2a3b763f372e">[email protected]</span></a>.
VII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification
55. These regulations are effective November 10, 2025. The
Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule
is not a ``major rule'' as defined in section 351 of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.
List of Subjects
18 CFR Part 153
Exports, Natural gas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
18 CFR Part 157
Administrative practice and procedure, Natural gas, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
By the Commission.
Issued: October 7, 2025.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Secretary.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends parts 153
and 157, chapter I, title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 153--APPLICATIONS FOR AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE, OR
MODIFY FACILITIES USED FOR THE EXPORT OR IMPORT OF NATURAL GAS
0
1. The authority citation for part 153 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717b, 717o; E.O. 10485; 3 CFR, 1949-1953
Comp., p. 970, as amended by E.O. 12038, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 136,
DOE Delegation Order No. S1-DEL-FERC-2006 (May 16, 2006).
0
2. Revise Sec. 153.4 to read as follows:
Sec. 153.4 General requirements.
The procedures in Sec. Sec. 157.5, 157.6, 157.8, 157.9, 157.10,
157.11, and 157.12 of this chapter are applicable to the applications
described in this subpart.
PART 157--APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY AND FOR ORDERS PERMITTING AND APPROVING ABANDONMENT UNDER
SECTION 7 OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT
0
3. The authority citation for part 157 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717-717w, 3301-3432; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.
Sec. 157.23 [Removed]
0
4. Remove Sec. 157.23.
[FR Doc. 2025-19533 Filed 10-9-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on October 10, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.