Legal Status This site displays a prototype of a “Web 2.0” version of the daily
Federal Register. It is not an official legal edition of the Federal
Register, and does not replace the official print version or the official
electronic version on GPO’s govinfo.gov.

The documents posted on this site are XML renditions of published Federal
Register documents. Each document posted on the site includes a link to the
corresponding official PDF file on govinfo.gov. This prototype edition of the
daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov will remain an unofficial
informational resource until the Administrative Committee of the Federal
Register (ACFR) issues a regulation granting it official legal status.
For complete information about, and access to, our official publications
and services, go to About the Federal Register on NARA's archives.gov.

The OFR/GPO partnership is committed to presenting accurate and reliable
regulatory information on FederalRegister.gov with the objective of
establishing the XML-based Federal Register as an ACFR-sanctioned
publication in the future. While every effort has been made to ensure that
the material on FederalRegister.gov is accurately displayed, consistent with
the official SGML-based PDF version on govinfo.gov, those relying on it for
legal research should verify their results against an official edition of
the Federal Register. Until the ACFR grants it official status, the XML
rendition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov does not
provide legal notice to the public or judicial notice to the courts.

Legal Status

Rule

You may be interested in this older document that published on 10/10/2025 with action 'Final rule.' View Document

Removal of Regulations Limiting Authorizations To Proceed With Construction Activities Pending Rehearing; Confirmation

A Rule by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on 02/24/2026

• 1.

1.

• Document Details Published Content - Document Details Agencies Department of Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Agency/Docket Number Docket No. RM25-9-000 CFR 18 CFR 153 18 CFR 157 Document Citation 91 FR 8734 Document Number 2026-03658 Document Type Rule Pages 8734-8737
  (4 pages) Publication Date 02/24/2026 Published Content - Document Details

• PDF Official Content

  • View printed version (PDF) Official Content

• Document Details Published Content - Document Details Agencies Department of Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Agency/Docket Number Docket No. RM25-9-000 CFR 18 CFR 153 18 CFR 157 Document Citation 91 FR 8734 Document Number 2026-03658 Document Type Rule Pages 8734-8737
  (4 pages) Publication Date 02/24/2026 Published Content - Document Details

• Document Dates Published Content - Document Dates Effective Date 2025-11-10 Dates Text The Commission confirms that the effective date of the final rule published on October 10, 2025 (90 FR 48221), was November 10, 2025. Published Content - Document Dates

• Table of Contents Enhanced Content - Table of Contents This table of contents is a navigational tool, processed from the
  headings within the legal text of Federal Register documents.
  This repetition of headings to form internal navigation links
  has no substantive legal effect.

  • AGENCY:
  • ACTION:
  • SUMMARY:
  • DATES:
  • FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
  • SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
  • I. Background
  • II. Discussion
  • A. Justification for Removal
  • B. Protections Available to Stakeholders
  • C. Waiver Order
  • D. Commission Determination
  • III. Document Availability
  • IV. Dates
  • Footnotes Enhanced Content - Table of Contents

• Related Documents Enhanced Content - Related Documents FederalRegister.gov uses the agency dockets published with the document to display related documents.

| Docket No. RM25-9-000
(3 Documents) | | | |
| --- | | | |
| Date | | Action | Title |
| | 2026-02-24 | | Removal of Regulations Limiting Authorizations To Proceed With Construction Activities Pending Rehearing; Confirmation |
| | 2025-10-10 | Final rule. | Removal of Regulations Limiting Authorizations To Proceed With Construction Activities Pending Rehearing |
| | 2025-06-24 | Notice of proposed rulemaking. | Removal of Regulations Limiting Authorizations To Proceed With Construction Activities Pending Rehearing |

Enhanced Content - Related Documents

• Public Comments Enhanced Content - Public Comments This feature is not available for this document.

Enhanced Content - Public Comments
- Regulations.gov Data Enhanced Content - Regulations.gov Data Additional information is not currently available for this document.

Enhanced Content - Regulations.gov Data

- Sharing Enhanced Content - Sharing Shorter Document URL https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2026-03658 Email Email this document to a friend Enhanced Content - Sharing

• Print Enhanced Content - Print
  • Print this document Enhanced Content - Print
• Document Statistics Enhanced Content - Document Statistics Document page views are updated periodically throughout the day and are cumulative counts for this document. Counts are subject to sampling, reprocessing and revision (up or down) throughout the day.

Page views 118
as of
02/26/2026 at 8:15 am EST Enhanced Content - Document Statistics
- Other Formats Enhanced Content - Other Formats This document is also available in the following formats:

JSON Normalized attributes and metadata XML Original full text XML MODS Government Publishing Office metadata More information and documentation can be found in our developer tools pages.

Enhanced Content - Other Formats
- Public Inspection Public Inspection This PDF is FR Doc. 2026-03658 as it appeared on Public Inspection on
02/23/2026 at 8:45 am.

It was viewed
19
times while on Public Inspection.

If you are using public inspection listings for legal research, you
should verify the contents of the documents against a final, official
edition of the Federal Register. Only official editions of the
Federal Register provide legal notice of publication to the public and judicial notice
to the courts under 44 U.S.C. 1503 & 1507. Learn more here.

Public Inspection
Published Document: 2026-03658 (91 FR 8734) This document has been published in the Federal Register. Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.

Document Headings Document headings vary by document type but may contain
the following:

1. the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
2. the number of the CFR title and the number of each part the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly related to
3. the agency docket number / agency internal file number
4. the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions See the Document Drafting Handbook for more details.

Department of Energy

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

1. 18 CFR Parts 153 and 157
2. [Docket No. RM25-9-000]

AGENCY:

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:

Final rule; confirmation of effective date; order addressing arguments raised on rehearing.

SUMMARY:

On October 10, 2025, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) published in the Federal Register a final rule removing regulations. This action addresses arguments raised on rehearing and confirms the effective date of that final rule.

DATES:

The Commission confirms that the effective date of the final rule published on October 10, 2025 (90 FR 48221), was 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, (202) 502-8505, indigo.brown@ferc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. On October 7, 2025, the Commission issued a final rule (final rule) amending its regulations to remove § 157.23 and modify § 153.4 to remove the cross-reference to § 157.23. [1 ] These sections placed restrictions on the issuance of authorizations to proceed with the construction of natural gas facilities. On November 6, 2025, a coalition of petitioners (together, Petitioners) [2 ] filed a request for rehearing of the final rule.

2. Pursuant to Allegheny Defense Project v. FERC, [3 ] the rehearing request filed in this proceeding may be deemed denied by operation of law. However, as permitted by section 19(a) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), [4 ] we are modifying the discussion in the final rule and continue to reach the same result in this proceeding, as discussed below. [5 ]

I. Background

1. In Order No. 871, the Commission amended its regulations to add § 157.23, precluding the issuance of authorizations to proceed with construction of new natural gas transportation, export, or import facilities, authorized pursuant to sections 3 and 7(c) of the NGA, for a limited time while certain requests for rehearing were pending before the Commission. [6 ] On January 20, 2025, the ( printed page 8735) President issued Executive Order 14154, to unleash American energy by, among other things, eliminating delays in and streamlining the permitting process for energy infrastructure projects, stating that it is “in the national interest to unleash America's affordable and reliable energy and natural resources.” [7 ] On the same date, the President issued Executive Order 14156, which declared a national energy emergency and prioritized the expansion of energy infrastructure as a matter of critical national and economic security. [8 ]

2. On April 14, 2025, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) filed a petition for rulemaking, requesting that the Commission adopt a rule rescinding Order No. 871, removing § 157.23 from the regulations, and amending § 153.4, which relates to applications to authorize liquefied natural gas facilities under NGA section 3, to remove the reference to § 157.23.

3. On June 18, 2025, the Commission issued an order temporarily waiving § 157.23 for one year, until June 30, 2026 (Waiver Order). [9 ] At the same time, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR), which proposed to permanently remove § 157.23 from its regulations and revise § 153.4 to eliminate the cross-reference to § 157.23. [10 ] The Commission proposed to remove § 157.23 to respond to the imperative to remove barriers to the construction of necessary energy infrastructure. In addition to requesting public comments on the NOPR proposal to eliminate § 157.23 in its entirety, the Commission posed two specific questions. The Commission sought comment on whether it should instead revise § 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. [11 ]

4. The NOPR was published in the Federal Register with a 30-day comment period. [12 ] The Commission received 23 comments in response to the NOPR, including 11 comments from various individuals and organizations opposing the Commission's proposal to remove § 157.23; [13 ] and 12 comments from various entities supporting its removal. [14 ]

5. On October 7, 2025, the Commission issued the final rule, removing § 157.23 from its regulations. In developing the final rule, the Commission considered and responded to all comments received in response to the NOPR. The Commission ultimately found that removal of the regulation was warranted to reduce construction delays 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 but that sufficient safeguards available to impacted stakeholders remained. [15 ]

6. On November 6, 2025, Petitioners sought rehearing of the final rule arguing that the Commission (1) failed to provide an explanation for its departure from prior policy regarding construction delays and the stakeholder protections clarified in Allegheny, and relied on arguments that the Commission previously discredited in Order No. 871; (2) failed to provide evidence that § 157.23 impedes gas infrastructure development; (3) failed to provide evidence that other protections available to stakeholders sufficiently address the potential harms from project developers commencing construction during the rehearing period; and (4) used the rulemaking to cure the lack of notice and comment procedures in the Waiver Order.

II. Discussion

A. Justification for Removal

1. Petitioners disagree with the Commission's conclusion that the removal of § 157.23 is warranted because judicial review and other case-by-case relief offer sufficient protection, given that projects subject to the regulation are found to be in the public interest. [16 ] They argue that the existence of a public interest finding to justify the removal of § 157.23 does not explain how the protections previously found to be inadequate in Order No. 871 are now sufficient to protect parties seeking rehearing. [17 ] Petitioners maintain that the Commission relied on arguments that it previously discredited in Order No. 871. Specifically, they contend that the Commission failed to provide an explanation for reversing course from its previous finding that even though parties can seek judicial review once rehearing has been deemed denied, the purpose of § 157.23 was to prevent construction until the Commission completed its review process. [18 ] Additionally, noting that the Commission previously found that adopting § 157.23 would not substantially impact the natural gas industry, Petitioners argue that the Commission failed to explain why this prior finding is now improper. [19 ]

2. The Commission is entitled to change its approach and depart from prior precedent, provided that it acknowledges the change in policy and provides a reasoned explanation for the new approach. [20 ] In the final rule, the Commission acknowledged that it departed from the prior policy set forth in Order No. 871. [21 ] The Commission recognized that “Order No. 871 provided necessary protections along with Allegheny' s assurance of timely judicial review of initial Commission orders.” [22 ] However, the Commission explained that, in light of resource adequacy and reliability concerns from increasing electricity and natural gas demand, the Commission had cause to reevaluate its prior policy concerns and now concluded that § 157.23 was no longer necessary to protect stakeholders, given the Commission's thorough review of each NGA section 3 and 7 application and the other protections ( printed page 8736) available to stakeholders, including judicial review, injunctive relief, motions for stays, and the Commission's presumptive stay policy. [23 ] Additionally, the Commission did not find in the final rule that removal was warranted due to Order No. 871's impact on the natural gas industry. Rather, the Commission concluded that removal of § 157.23 advances the Commission's mission under the NGA to facilitate the orderly development of natural gas supplies and ensure that approved projects are developed in a timely manner to combat resource adequacy concerns and natural gas and electricity system reliability concerns. [24 ] Accordingly, we continue to find that delaying the issuance of construction authorizations for approved projects as a result of § 157.23 is no longer in the public interest. [25 ]

3. Petitioners assert that the Commission determined that the risk of potential delay from § 157.23 justified removal of the regulation and contend that the Commission failed to provide evidence that § 157.23 impedes gas infrastructure development. [26 ] They argue that, prior to Order No. 871, project developers had to account for potential delays and that the Commission could minimize the risk of delays, as it controls the timeframe for acting on rehearing requests. [27 ] They maintain that the Commission's reliance on resource adequacy and reliability concerns to remove § 157.23 does not provide sufficient evidence that potential delays could have an effect on grid reliability. [28 ] Petitioners aver that the Commission should not authorize construction until the conclusion of the decision making process on rehearing, because of the possibility that it could have made an incorrect determination in the initial order. [29 ] They further claim that the Commission disregards the potential disruption of infrastructure development plans should the Commission order a project developer to halt construction in the event that it grants rehearing. [30 ]

4. As explained in the final rule, the estimated increases in electricity and natural gas demand, without sufficient natural gas supplies and infrastructure, could impact grid reliability. [31 ] The Commission found that removing § 157.23 would lessen the risk that any potential delays would affect the availability of necessary natural gas supplies to meet increasing demands. [32 ] In Order No. 871-B, the Commission acknowledged that the regulation could add delays and that project development schedules had to account for some uncertainty as the Commission's timeline for processing project applications is dictated by several factors. [33 ] However, as stated above, evidence of increasing demand amplifies our concern that the potential delay resulting from application of § 157.23 could affect the timeliness of natural gas supplies. Regardless of the length of the average construction delay, [34 ] the Commission sought to remove the risk of an additional regulatory delay of up to five months in the gas development process. [35 ] Additionally, the Commission determined that the default should be for certificate and authorization orders to go into effect absent case-specific reasons to the contrary. [36 ]

5. Petitioners argue that the Commission's reliability goals are “red herrings,” particularly when one considers the disruption to gas planning that may occur if the Commission authorized construction while rehearing was pending and then subsequently granted rehearing. [37 ] They argue that it is best to wait to authorize the start of construction until the Commission finishes its decision-making process on rehearing.

6. We are not persuaded by Petitioners' argument that a generic delay in construction for all natural gas infrastructure is preferable because the Commission may grant a request for rehearing in an individual case. Recognizing that the Commission is tasked under the NGA with the orderly development of natural gas supplies, Congress itself presumed that an application for rehearing should not operate as a stay unless “specifically” ordered by the Commission. [38 ] Consistent with this view, the Commission in the final rule explained that § 157.23 was now overly broad given that projected natural gas and electric generator demands require timely natural gas infrastructure development. [39 ] We went on to explain it was 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. [40 ] To the extent there is any disruption associated with a potential construction stop work order on rehearing, it is outweighed by the national benefits from eliminating § 157.23.

B. Protections Available to Stakeholders

1. Petitioners argue that the Commission failed to provide evidence that other protections available to stakeholders, including judicial review, motions for stay, and the presumptive stay policy, adequately address the potential harms of commencing construction during the rehearing period. [41 ] They assert that neither the Commission nor the courts have granted a motion for a stay in favor of an impacted stakeholder (noting four presumptive stays that were issued pursuant to Order No. 871) and that the courts do not timely act on judicial review or injunctive relief to prevent damage caused by construction authorizations during the rehearing period. [42 ]

2. In the final rule, the Commission explained that natural gas infrastructure projects are only approved following an extensive agency review, which requires the consideration of concerns raised by all stakeholders and any additional protection that may be warranted during project construction and operation. [43 ] Following the Commission's review, project developers must comply with the required conditions in a section 3 authorization or section 7 certificate order. Stakeholders and affected landowners may seek judicial review or injunctive relief after rehearing is deemed denied or file a motion for a stay with the Commission. [44 ] Additionally, the presumptive stay policy allows directly affected ( printed page 8737) landowners who would be subject to eminent domain under NGA section 7 to request a stay of a certificate order and protects such landowners from potential harm where a pipeline may initiate eminent domain proceedings immediately following the issuance of an order. [45 ] The Commission considers each project application and requested Commission remedy on a case-by-case basis to address all raised concerns and determine whether other relief is required to prevent irreparable harm. The fact that the Commission and courts do not frequently grant motions for stay is not evidence of an unwillingness to grant a meritorious request, but rather, a reflection of the merits of such requests. [46 ] On the contrary, the Commission invoked its presumptive stay policy in a recent section 7 certificate proceeding in which a directly affected landowner intervened and protested, and the applicant had not acquired all necessary property interests. The Commission stayed the certificate during the 30-day rehearing period, and pending Commission resolution of any timely requests for rehearing filed by an affected landowner subject to eminent domain, up until 90 days following the date that a request for rehearing may be deemed to have been denied under NGA section 19(a). [47 ]

3. Finally, Petitioners argue that all these protections existed prior to § 157.23 and are not enough to justify the rule's recission. [48 ] They argue that the Commission erred by failing to provide any evidence that stays or expedited judicial review sufficiently address the harms § 157.23 is meant to protect against. [49 ]

4. Petitioners err to the extent that they suggest Allegheny' s reform of the Commission's rehearing practice or the presumptive stay were in place when the Commission issued Order No. 871. Both occurred after the Commission initially adopted § 157.23. In Order No. 871, the Commission explained that it was exercising its discretion to balance its commitment to respond to parties' concerns in comprehensive orders on rehearing and the concerns posed by the possibility of construction proceeding prior to the completion of Commission review. [50 ] Although we are sensitive to these concerns, after five years with the rule in place, the Commission appropriately determined the rule was overly broad in light of other case-by-case protections and our NGA duties during a period of increasing national natural gas demand.

C. Waiver Order

1. Petitioners argue that the issuance of the Waiver Order constituted a rulemaking. [51 ] Citing cases where agencies failed to provide notice and comment prior to the promulgation of a final rule, Petitioners argue that the Commission attempted to cure the Waiver Order's lack of notice and comment procedures by offering what they characterize as a post-promulgation comment period in the final rule docket. [52 ] Petitioners contend that the issuance of the Waiver Order simultaneously with the final rule signaled the Commission's desire to repeal § 157.23 before soliciting public comment. [53 ]

2. Despite Petitioners' arguments to the contrary, a post-promulgation comment period is not at issue here. The Commission complied with section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act by providing notice and an opportunity to comment on its proposal to eliminate § 157.23 prior to issuing the final rule. [54 ] Unlike the cases cited by Petitioners, prior to the effective date of the final rule, the Commission issued the NOPR, which was published in the Federal Register and established a 30-day comment period, and determined that the removal of § 157.23 was warranted after considering all comments submitted in response to the NOPR. [55 ] Further, as the Commission previously explained, any arguments challenging the Waiver Order are outside the scope of this rulemaking proceeding. [56 ] Additionally, arguments challenging the Waiver Order are moot as the Commission's November 13, 2025 order dismissing the rehearing request of the Waiver Order, which was not appealed, is now final. [57 ]

D. Commission Determination

1. In response to Petitioners' request for rehearing the final rule is hereby modified and the result sustained, as discussed in the body of this order.

III. Document Availability

1. 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 (http://www.ferc.gov).

2. 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.

3. 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 ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. Email the Public Reference Room at public.referenceroom@ferc.gov.

IV. Dates

1. The effective date of the document published on October 10, 2025 (90 FR 48221), is confirmed: November 10, 2025.

By the Commission.

Issued: February 19, 2026.

Debbie-Anne A. Reese,

Secretary.

Footnotes

1. Removal of Reguls. Limiting Authorizations to Proceed with Constr. Activities Pending Rehearing, Order No. 915, 90 FR 48221 (Oct. 10, 2025), 193 FERC ¶ 61,014 (2025), Errata Notices, Docket No. RM25-9-000 (issued Oct. 10 and Oct. 23, 2025) (Final Rule).

Back to Citation 2.

                     Petitioners include: Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Southern Environmental Law Center, 350 Triangle, 7 Directions of Service, Appalachian Voices, For a Better Bayou, Habitat Recovery Project, Louisiana Bucket Brigade, Micah 6:8 Mision, Mothers Out Front, Preserve Giles County, Property Rights and Pipeline Center, Protect our Water Heritage Rights, Public Citizen, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, Turtle Island Restoration Network, Robert McNutt, and Katie Whitehead.

Back to Citation 3.

                     964 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (en banc) (*Allegheny*).

Back to Citation 4. 15 U.S.C. 717r(a) (“Until the record in a proceeding shall have been filed in a court of appeals, as provided in subsection (b), the Commission may at any time, upon reasonable notice and in such manner as it shall deem proper, modify or set aside, in whole or in part, any finding or order made or issued by it under the provisions of this chapter.”).

Back to Citation 5. Allegheny, 964 F.3d at 16-17. The Commission is not changing the outcome of the Final Rule. See Smith Lake Improvement & Stakeholders Ass'n v. FERC, 809 F.3d 55, 56-57 (D.C. Cir. 2015).

Back to Citation 6. Limiting Authorizations to Proceed with Constr. Activities Pending Rehearing, Order No. 871, 171

                    FERC ¶ 61,201 (2020), *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); *see* Final Rule, 193 FERC ¶ 61,014 at PP 2-6 for a more detailed discussion of Order No. 871.

Back to Citation 7. E.O. 14154, 90 FR 8353 (Jan. 20, 2025).

Back to Citation 8. E.O. 14156, 90 FR 8433 (Jan. 20, 2025).

Back to Citation 9. Interstate Nat. Gas Assoc. of Am., 191 FERC ¶ 61,209 (2025) (Waiver Order).

Back to Citation 10. See Removal of Reguls. Limiting Authorizations to Proceed with Constr. Activities Pending Rehearing, 90 FR 26771 (June 24, 2025), 191 FERC ¶ 61,208 (2025) (NOPR).

Back to Citation 11. Id. P 23.

Back to Citation 12. 90 FR 26771 (June 24, 2025).

Back to Citation 13.

                     Commenters that opposed the NOPR included: Marion Freistadt; Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services; a consortium of public interest organizations and individuals; 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; PennFuture; Columbia Riverkeeper et. al; and Delaware Riverkeeper.

Back to Citation 14.

                     Commenters that supported the NOPR included: Arizona Corporation Commission; Energy Transfer LP; Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company; American Gas Association; Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC; INGAA, the American Petroleum Institute, and GPA Midstream Association; Cheniere Energy, Inc.; Kinder Morgan, Inc.; Enbridge Gas Pipelines; Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP; The Williams Companies, Inc.; and WBI Energy Transmission, Inc.

Back to Citation 15.

                     Final Rule, 193 FERC ¶ 61,014 at P 47. *See id.* PP 22-24 (discussing judicial and Commission protections for landowners and stakeholders).

Back to Citation 16.

                     Rehearing Request at 11.

Back to Citation 17. Id. at 12.

Back to Citation 18. Id. at 12-13.

Back to Citation 19. Id. at 13.

Back to Citation 20. See FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515-16 (2009); In re Permian Basin Area Rate Cases, 390 U.S. 747, 784 (1968); see also Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 42 (1983) (“[W]e fully recognize that regulatory agencies do not establish rules of conduct to last forever.”) (internal quotations omitted); Greater Bos. Television Corp. v. FCC, 444 F.2d 841, 852 (D.C. Cir. 1970) (an agency may change its course as long as it “suppl[ies] a reasoned analysis indicating that prior policies and standards are being deliberately changed, not casually ignored.”), cert. denied, 403 U.S. 923 (1971).

Back to Citation 21.

                     Final Rule, 193 FERC ¶ 61,014 at P 22.

Back to Citation 22. Id.

Back to Citation 23. Id. PP 22-24, 28, 43.

Back to Citation 24. Id. PP 30, 35, 47.

Back to Citation 25. Id. PP 22, 39.

Back to Citation 26.

                     Rehearing Request at 14.

Back to Citation 27. Id. at 15.

Back to Citation 28. Id.

Back to Citation 29. Id.

Back to Citation 30. Id. at 16.

Back to Citation 31.

                     
                    See 
                     Final Rule, 193 FERC ¶ 61,014 at PP 28-29; EIA, S *hort-Term Energy Outlook* (May 6, 2025), *[https://www.eia.gov/​outlooks/​steo](https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo)* (accessed Sept. 16, 2025); EIA, *EIA Expects Record U.S. Natural Gas Consumption in 2025* (Aug. 25, 2025), *[https://www.eia.gov/​todayinenergy/​detail.php?​id=​65984](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=65984)* (accessed Sept. 16, 2025).

Back to Citation 32. Id. P 40.

Back to Citation 33.

                     Order No. 871-B, 175 FERC ¶ 61,098 at P 36.

Back to Citation 34.

                     
                    See 
                     Rehearing Request at 13 (citing Final Rule, 193 FERC ¶ 61,014 at P 40 (noting that removal of § 157.23 eliminates one, potentially five-month, delay from the construction authorization process) and Order No. 871-B, 175 FERC ¶ 61,098 at P 37 (providing an estimate, based on 2021 data, that prior to § 157.23's promulgation the average delay between project approval and authorization to commence construction was 85 days)).

Back to Citation 35.

                     Final Rule, 193 FERC ¶ 61,014 at P 40.

Back to Citation 36. Id. P 43.

Back to Citation 37.

                     Rehearing Request at 15-16.

Back to Citation 38. 15 U.S.C. 717r(c).

Back to Citation 39.

                     Final Rule, 193 FERC ¶ 61,014 at PP 28-30, 39.

Back to Citation 40. Id. P 40.

Back to Citation 41.

                     Rehearing Request at 16.

Back to Citation 42. Id. at 16-17.

Back to Citation 43.

                     Final Rule, 193 FERC ¶ 61,014 at PP 42-44.

Back to Citation 44. Id. P 24.

Back to Citation 45. Id. PP 23, 46.

Back to Citation 46.

                     The timing of the judicial review process is not within the Commission's control. The Commission grants stays where justice so requires. *See, e.g., Alutiiq Tribe of Old Harbor Alaska Village Elec. Coop., Inc.,* 192 FERC ¶ 61,224, at PP 11-14 (2025) (finding that justice required a stay of a deadline to construct a hydroelectric project because the license transferee experienced delays with the conveyance of the license and right-of-way permitting process that were outside its control); *PacifiCorp,* 163 FERC ¶ 61,208, at PP 6-9 (2018) (finding that justice required a stay of an order granting an amendment to a license until the Commission acts on a license transfer application because the licensee would incur undue costs).

Back to Citation 47. Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc., 194 FERC ¶ 61,026, at P 44 (2026); see Final Rule, 193 FERC ¶ 61,014 at PP 23, 46 (explaining that the Commission would continue the presumptive stay policy and listing the criteria it would consider).

Back to Citation 48.

                     Rehearing Request at 17.

Back to Citation 49. Id. at 4.

Back to Citation 50.

                     Order No. 871, 171 FERC ¶ 61,201 at P 11.

Back to Citation 51.

                     Rehearing Request at 18-19.

Back to Citation 52. Id. at 18-19 (citing U.S. Steel Corp. v. EPA, 595 F.2d 207, 214-15 (5th Cir. 1979) (holding that the Environmental Protection Agency failed to follow the procedures required by section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) where it promulgated a list of nonattainment areas under the Clean Air Act without providing notice and comment prior to promulgation and instead providing a post-promulgation comment period); Buschmann v. Schweiker, 676 F.2d 352, 358 (9th Cir. 1982) (holding that the agency failed to comply with the APA's notice and comment procedures when it issued an interim amendment to a regulation affecting supplemental security income recipients); Sharon Steel Corp. v. EPA, 597 F.2d 377, 381 (3d Cir. 1979) (holding that a post-promulgation comment period “cannot substitute for the prior notice and comment required by the APA.”)).

Back to Citation 53. Id. at 19.

Back to Citation 54.

                     
                    See 
                     Final Rule, 193 FERC ¶ 61,014 at P 18.

Back to Citation 55. See supra P 7; 5 U.S.C. 553.

Back to Citation 56.

                     Final Rule, 193 FERC ¶ 61,014 at P 18.

Back to Citation 57. Interstate Nat. Gas Assoc. of Am., 193 FERC ¶ 61,119 (2025).

Back to Citation [FR Doc. 2026-03658 Filed 2-23-26; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P

Published Document: 2026-03658 (91 FR 8734)