FERC’s First Meeting Under New Leadership: Key Takeaways and Signals for 2026

On November 20, 2025, the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) held its first monthly open meeting since the confirmation and swearing-in of Chairman Laura Swett and Commissioner David LaCerte.[1] It marks the first time FERC has had a full five-member commission since the departures of Commissioner Mark Christie and Chairman Willie Phillips earlier this year. FERC’s first meeting under new leadership coincided with an agenda that underscored urgency and a new strategic direction. The summary below outlines the Commission’s discussion and key actions.

FERC’s Priorities Under Chairman Laura Swett:

The U.S. energy industry is at a critical juncture as electricity demand is expected to continue to grow at an extraordinary pace.[2] Chairman Swett’s opening remarks laid out a clear set of priorities, intended to meet that demand. Central to Chairman Swett’s mission is winning the artificial intelligence (AI) race and cementing U.S. energy dominance in that regard. With that backdrop, Chairman Swett identified her top two priorities as chair:

1. Connecting and powering data centers as quickly and durably as possible, and
2. Improving regulatory efficiency by streamlining permitting processes and reducing regulatory burden to accelerate the maintenance and construction of new energy infrastructure.

Commissioner LaCerte echoed these themes in his inaugural remarks, stressing that project developers should not face unnecessary procedural obstacles as they seek to build critical infrastructure. He also highlighted FERC’s core responsibility: protecting ratepayers from unreasonable rates.

As FERC moves into a new era of leadership, it is also embarking on a new challenge in federal energy policy—how to rapidly build out generation to meet growing demand from AI and data centers while simultaneously maintaining just and reasonable rates for consumers.

FERC Actions

FERC terminated several pending proceedings, with the stated intent of providing regulatory certainty and streamlining infrastructure permitting.

Duty of Candor (Docket No. RM22-20-000):

FERC declined to adopt a new, overarching duty of candor regulation. In July 2022, FERC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) that would have added a new duty of candor comprised of broad due diligence and disclosure requirements.[3] The NOPR drew broad criticism from the regulated and legal community because the proposal, among other things, would have imposed obligations on unregulated entities[4] and materially conflicted with attorney obligations for privilege, confidentiality, and zealous advocacy.[5] FERC’s decision withdrew the NOPR and terminated the rulemaking proceeding.[6]

FERC emphasized that numerous regulations already exist prohibiting untruthful, inaccurate, or incomplete communications to FERC and other organizations upon which it relies.[7] For instance, FERC’s market behavior rules require sellers with market-based rate authority to

“provide accurate and factual information and not submit false or misleading information, or omit material information, in any communication with the Commission, [] regional transmission organizations, [] independent system operators, or jurisdictional transmission providers.”[8]

In addition, if a seller reports transactions to publishers of electric or natural gas price indices, the seller “must provide accurate and factual information, and not knowingly submit false or misleading information or omit material information to any such publisher.”[9] Critically, the existing duty of candor has been held in federal court as not requiring an intent element for sellers making false statements or omitting material facts in relevant communications.[10] The industry has been arguing that the existing duty of candor should incorporate an intent element with respect to potential violations,[11] and we shall see if the current Commission is open to such a revision.

FERC’s prohibition of fraud and market manipulation also mandates the provision of accurate information and prohibits materially misleading communications, albeit with the obligation of the Commission to establish intent as one element of any violation of its market manipulation rules.[12]

Although this NOPR has been shelved, the enforcement risk around misstatements has not diminished, as made apparent by the FY2025 Enforcement Report that was also issued last week.

Highlights from FY2025 Enforcement Report:

The Office of Enforcement and Regulatory Accounting presented its 19th annual report, highlighting enforcement priorities and trends seen in FY 2025.[13] For this year, enforcement focused on five core areas: (1) fraud and market manipulation, (2) serious reliability violations, (3) anti-competitive conduct, (4) threats to critical energy infrastructure, and (5) conduct that undermines market transparency.

In FY2025, the Office of Enforcement resolved 11 investigations via settlements approved by FERC. The settlements totaled approximately $36.57 million, which included $22.84 million in civil penalties and $13.73 million in disgorgement. Enforcement opened 24 new investigations, closed 17 investigations with no action, closed 163 self-reports without further action, closed one market monitoring unit referral without further action, and resolved 307 enforcement hotline calls. These cases spanned multiple industry segments, but the throughline was failure to provide the service for which an entity was compensated. Enforcement’s compliance message to the industry was explicit:

• If an entity is being paid to provide a service, it must:
  • Actually have the resources in place; and
  • Deliver that service in the manner and with the reliability the tariff or program requires.

Enforcement provided two direct examples. First, if a generator signs up to be a capacity resource, it is important that it be able to provide the amount of capacity for which it has been paid at a level of timeliness and reliability on which that payment was based. Second, if an entity agrees to provide a demand response service, it must have actual customers that agree to provide a response consistent with the terms of the demand response program in which it agreed to participate.

Winter 2025-2026 Energy Market & Reliability Assessment[14]:

FERC staff projects a generally adequate reliability outlook under normal winter conditions, supported by a significant buildout of new generation and transmission infrastructure. The outlook projects natural gas prices to remain elevated but stabilized in part by slightly warmer-than-average temperatures in the southern and eastern U.S., which is expected to temper demand. Despite these factors, staff emphasized that prolonged or extreme cold events could tighten conditions.

Winter electricity demand is forecast to remain near historic highs, with total projected consumption of 1,035 TWh—2.7% above the five-year average. While residential customers remain the largest load segment, commercial demand is growing fastest—roughly 5% above the five-year average—driven in part by expanding data-center operations. On the supply side, the system is strengthened by 64.7 GW of new generating capacity added since the end of last winter—primarily solar and battery storage—offset by 8.6 GW of retirements. Transmission infrastructure is also expanding meaningfully—19,008 miles of new or upgraded lines will be available this winter.

Large-Load Interconnection (Docket No. 26-4-000):

Although not formally on the agenda, FERC repeatedly referenced the large-load interconnection proceeding initiated in response to Department of Energy Secretary Wright’s letter to FERC requesting a rulemaking.[15] Commissioner David Rosner reflected that the Federal Power Act clearly delineates state and federal roles, but there is substantial space for collaboration. Commissioner Rosner also acknowledged that congressional interest in the proceeding is high, with letters from the Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources and a coalition of congressional Democrats led by Senator Ed Markey. Initial comments in the docket were due November 21.  A significant number of initial comments have already been filed.

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Comment Letter:

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee submitted a letter to FERC supporting FERC’s efforts to improve large-load and new generation interconnections so that the grid can reliably and affordably meet growing demand. The Committee emphasized that retail consumers must not be forced to subsidize major new industrial loads, and it stressed that FERC must respect the Federal Power Act’s division between federal jurisdiction over wholesale transmission and state authority over retail rates. The letter encouraged FERC to work collaboratively with utilities and grid operators to build a system capable of supporting data centers, AI, advanced manufacturing, and other emerging industries, while maintaining reliability and keeping electricity affordable for all Americans.[16]

Waiver of Tariff Requirements (Docket No. PL20-7-000):

FERC withdrew its 2020 Proposed Policy Statement on tariff waivers and terminated the proceeding.[17] On May 21, 2020, FERC’s Proposed Policy Statement set forth an approach to clarify its review of requests for waiver of tariff provisions.

Ultimately, FERC determined that the Proposed Policy Statement lacked support. It agreed with commenters that the proposal would increase burden for market participants, unnecessarily limit FERC’s discretion, and possibly deter timely correction of errors. Instead, FERC determined that the current waiver process is sufficient.

Moving forward, entities seeking waiver of tariff provisions should submit such filings pursuant to Rule 207(a)(5) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. FERC will consider such filings on a case-by-case basis under the Commission’s existing four-part test:

• The applicant acted in good faith;
• The waiver is of limited scope;
• The waiver addresses a concrete problem; and
• The waiver does not have undesirable consequences, such as harming third parties.

Upon satisfaction of these criteria, FERC will make decisions consistent with the filed rate doctrine and the rule against retroactive ratemaking. Regulated entities are further encouraged to adopt tariff revisions that (1) allow them to cure good faith errors themselves without the need for Commission intervention; or (2) provide advanced notice that specific provisions may be waived by Commission order. FERC’s action may suggest more open consideration of waiver requests to address irrational results if strict adherence to the filed rate is otherwise required.

Blanket Authorization for LNG and Hydroelectric Facility Modifications (Docket No. RM26-2-000; RM26-3-000):

FERC signaled strong support for streamlining routine infrastructure modifications at both liquefied natural gas (LNG) and hydroelectric facilities, framing these steps as essential to meeting accelerating load growth and improving regulatory efficiency. FERC voted to issue two Notices of Inquiry (NOI) seeking comment on whether certain routine, low-impact activities at LNG and hydroelectric facilities should be eligible for blanket authorization.[20] Comments on both NOIs are due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.

Oil Pipeline Index (Docket No. RM26-6-000):

The Energy Policy Act of 1992 and Order No. 561 require FERC to establish a methodology that allows oil pipelines to change rates based upon an annual index opposed to making cost-of service filings.[21] This NOPR initiates FERC’s five-year review of the oil pipeline index and proposes to set the index level at PPI-FG minus 1.42% for the July 1, 2026–July 1, 2031 period.[22] The NOPR invites comment on all aspects of the calculation; itand sets forth an initial comment deadline of December 24, 2025 and reply comments due January 16, 2026.

At the meeting, commissioners characterized this action as restoring predictability and stability following several years of controversy over the index, with multiple commissioners noting that uncertainty around the index has increased regulatory risk and borrowing costs for pipelines and shippers.

FERC Expected to Continue to Address the Need for Rapid Deployment of New Energy Infrastructure

As FERC moves forward under Chairman Swett’s leadership, FERC is signaling its focus on streamlining energy infrastructure and readiness for unprecedented load growth from AI and data-center development. The ongoing large-load interconnection docket sets the stage for one of the most consequential policy debates in years. With a fully seated Commission, a sharpened focus on permitting reform, and a mandate to ensure both affordability and energy security, FERC is poised in the coming months to take additional steps that may reshape the nation’s approach to infrastructure deployment and interconnection policy.

[1] FERC Commission Meeting | November 2025 Open Meeting, https://www.youtube.com/live/_Cxq0gORq8c (Nov. 20, 2025).

[2] See Resource Adequacy Report: Evaluating the Reliability and Security of the United States Electric Grid, Dep’t of Energy (July 2025), https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/DOE%20Final%20EO%20Report%20%28FINAL%20JULY%207%29.pdf.

[3] Duty of Candor, 87 Fed. Reg. 49784 (Aug 12, 2022), 180 FERC ⁋ 61,052 (2022) (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking).

[4] See Futures Indus. Ass’n, Comments, RM22-20-000 (Nov. 9, 2022) (FIA Comments) (explaining that financial entities not subject to Federal Power Act regulation would be broadly subject to the proposed due diligence requirements).

[5] See A.B.A, Comments, RM22-20-000 (Nov. 9, 2022) (explaining that the proposal would undermine State regulation of attorney ethics).

[6] See Duty of Candor, 193 ⁋ 61,129 (Nov. 20, 2025) (Order Withdrawing and Terminating Proceeding).

[7] Id. at ⁋ 2.

[8] 18 C.F.R. § 35.41(b).

[9] 18 C.F.R. § 35.41(c).

[10] See Kourouma v. FERC, 723 F.3d 274, 278-79 (D.C. Cir. 2013).

[11] See FIA Comments at pp. 3-5 (encouraging FERC to look to other federal contexts whereby duties of candor incorporate scienter and intent elements with respect to potential violations of such duties).

[12] 18 C.F.R. § 1c.

[13] Off. of Enforcement, 2025 Report on Enforcement, FERC (Nov. 20, 2025), https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/news/fy2025-report-enforcement.

[14] Off. of Tech. Reporting and Econ. & Off. of Elec. Reliability, 2025-2026 Winter Energy Market and Electric Reliability Assessment, FERC (Nov. 20, 2025), https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/news/2025-2026-winter-energy-market-and-reliability-assessment.

[15] Letter from Chris Wright, Sec’y of Energy, U.S. Dep’t. of Energy, to David Rosner, Chairman, FERC (Oct. 23, 2025), https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2025-10/403%20Large

%20Loads%20Letter.pdf; Interconnection of Large Loads to the Interstate Transmission System, Notice Inviting Comments, FERC Docket No. RM26-4-000 (Oct. 27, 2025).

[16] U.S. Senate Comm. on Energy and Nat. Res., Comment Letter on the Interconnection of Large Loads (Oct. 23, 2025), https://www.energy.senate.gov/services/files/897F8081-26B9-4215-B476-1A5AC6ABE15C; see, also, U.S. Senator Edward Markey et al., Comment Letter on the Interconnection of Large Loads (Nov. 13, 2025), https://www.markey.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/ferc_data_center_energy_costs_letter.pdf.

[17] Waiver of Tariff Requirements, 193 FERC ⁋ 61,135 (Nov. 20, 2025) (Order Withdrawing and Terminating Proceeding).

[18] See id. at ⁋⁋ 3-5 (proposing that parties “seeking remedial relief in connection with actions or omissions that have already occurred prior to the date relief is sought” should characterize those filings as requests for remedial relief; that a party requesting remedial relief after it has “acted in a manner inconsistent with the tariff, or believes it may have done so, [should file] such requests… as petitions for declaratory order under Rule 207 of [FERC’s] Rule of Practice and Procedure”; and, that a party seeking relief for actions or omissions that occurred prior to the date of filing and where the party admits a tariff violation should request FERC action pursuant to Federal Power Act section 309 or Natural Gas Act section 16).

[19] Id. at ⁋ 22; see, e.g., Citizens Sunrise Transmission LLC, 171 FERC ¶ 61,106, at ¶ 10 (2020); Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 154 FERC ¶ 61,059, at ¶ 13 (2016).

[20] Authorizations for Certain Activities at Liquefied Natural Gas Plants, 193 FERC ⁋ 61,141 (Nov. 20, 2025) (Notice of Inquiry); Authorizations for Certain Post-Licensing Activities at Hydroelectric Projects, 193 FERC ⁋ 61,140 (Nov. 20, 2025) (Notice of Inquiry).

[21] See Revisions to Oil Pipeline Reguls. Pursuant to the Energy Pol’y Act of 1992, Order No. 561, 58 FR 58753 (Nov. 4, 1993).

[22] Five-Year Review of the Oil Pipeline Index, 193 FERC ⁋ 61,145 (Nov. 20, 2025) (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking).

This post is as of the posting date stated above. Sidley Austin LLP assumes no duty to update this post or post about any subsequent developments having a bearing on this post.