FERC Seeks Comments on Blanket Authorizations for LNG Facilities: What Stakeholders Should Know
FERC is seeking comments on its Notice of Inquiry[1] in Docket No. RM26-2-000 on whether —and, if so, how — it should revise Parts 153, 157, and 380 of its regulations to allow “blanket authorization” for certain activities at LNG plants. The NOI aligns with the stated goal of new leadership at the Commission to streamline permitting processes to encourage the maintenance and construction of energy infrastructure. Comments are due January 26, 2026.
Part 153 codifies the Commission’s regulations, pursuant to Section 3 of the NGA, on authorizations of the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of LNG terminals.[2] Part 157 codifies the Commission’s regulations, pursuant to Section 7 of the NGA, on applications for certificates of public convenience and necessity for natural gas pipelines and LNG facilities used to transport natural gas in interstate commerce.[3] The current regulatory regime requires case-specific applications and orders for LNG facilities under Sections 3 and 7.
In 1982, the Commission established a blanket authorization framework for interstate, natural gas pipelines under Part 157, Subpart F.[4] Under that framework, a pipeline that holds a certificate of public convenience and necessity under Section 7 can apply for a blanket certificate to perform certain activities, without any case-specific authorization and subject to annual reporting,[5] and other activities through a prior notice process.[6] Both types of activities are subject to cost limits.[7] Prior notice filings are subject to a 60-day protest period and if a protest is not withdrawn, the project is reviewed on a case-specific basis.[8]
Why Now?
The Commission explains that it declined to extend the blanket authorization framework to LNG facilities in 1982, when adopting the framework for interstate pipelines, and again in 2006 when the Commission revised such framework.[9] In the former instance, the Commission determined that LNG facilities had the potential for major impacts on ratepayers and deserved greater scrutiny; and, in the latter instance, it determined that LNG facilities were not well-understood and the engineering, environmental, safety, and security implications of LNG facilities necessitated case-by-case consideration.[10]
The Commission now points to its experience with LNG facilities and cites the over 100 applications it has assessed for LNG facilities pursuant to Sections 3 and 7 since 2006.[11] It also explains that it has coordinated extensively with the Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA) and U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) to develop safety requirements for LNG projects.[12]
The goal of a blanket authorization program under Sections 3 and 7 is to streamline regulations, reduce regulatory uncertainty, and encourage the construction and modification of LNG facilities. Once LNG facilities enter service, operators may need to perform replacements, modifications, and expansions over the life of the plant, and the Commission explains that the existing case-by-case authorization approach can be administratively inefficient and create regulatory uncertainty, even for routine work.[13]
The Commission also highlights that some LNG facilities regulated under NGA Section 7 have been operating for decades, and that while certain replacements have been handled under § 2.55 of the Commission’s regulations allowing auxiliary installations and facility replacements, there is uncertainty as to whether those tools extend to a broader range of upgrades needed to address technological change or other evolving operating conditions.[14]
Designing a New Regulatory Regime
The blanket certificate regime for interstate pipelines under 18 C.F.R. Part 157, Subpart F provides a menu of design choices (e.g., automatic authorization versus prior notice, protests, reporting, cost limits) that FERC is now considering in the NOI for LNG facilities. The table below provides an overview of the topics that the Commission seeks comments on.[15]
| Process | · Whether LNG operators should be required to apply for blanket authorization or whether it should be automatically granted to operators (including whether the Commission should allow automatic authorization only for certain “tiers” or categories of activities).
· Whether the operator’s compliance history should be considered. · Whether to require prior notice for authorized activities or (semi)annual reporting. · What stakeholder notice requirements should be established. · Whether to adopt notice-and-protest system from Part 157, Subpart F. |
| Project Eligibility | · What activities/modifications result in no adverse or less than significant impacts to environment, safety, cultural resources, socioeconomics, land use, recreation, visual resources, noise, and reliability.
· Whether blanket authorization should cover construction/operation of additional facilities outside authorized LNG plant limits and, if so, under what conditions. · Whether cost-based or other limits should be established. |
| Statutory and Regulatory Compliance | · How applicants should demonstrate consultation with other federal agencies and compliance with other federal/state/local requirements.
· How applicants, in order to receive waiver of prefiling requirements for LNG terminals should demonstrate that no state/local safety considerations exist that have not been previously addressed. · Whether categorical exclusions (with respect to NEPA) will be established or will existing exclusions be adopted from other agencies. |
| Conditions of Authorization | · What federal requirements/permits can be relied upon to ensure no significant engineering, environmental, safety, and security impacts exist.
· How blanket authorization under Section 3 would comply with federal environmental, natural resource, historical preservation, and safety laws. · What environmental and safety conditions historically incorporated in Section 3 and Section 7 LNG authorizations to require in blanket authorizations. · Whether to require notice to proceed for milestones (e.g., start of construction, introduction of hazardous materials). |
| Cost Impacts | · The historic and estimated range of costs for preparation of applications to modify LNG terminals/Section 7 LNG plants. |
The NOI presents an opportunity for LNG operators to draw on their experience to contribute to the administrative record on cost savings and help define the many details of a likely blanket authorization program under Sections 3 and 7 of the NGA. Relevant experience includes the conditions imposed under previous Section 3 and 7 authorizations; PHMSA and USCG processes and documentation; environmental and safety issues; engagement with interested parties; and areas of regulatory uncertainty within the current framework. Stakeholders may also draw on experience with the blanket authorization program for interstate pipelines in providing comments.
[1] Authorizations for Certain Activities at Liquefied Natural Gas Plants, 193 FERC ¶ 61,141 (2025) (NOI). The Commission is collecting information and perspectives through the NOI before deciding whether to propose specific regulatory text through a notice of proposed rulemaking.
[2] 18 C.F.R. pt. 153 (2026).
[3] 18 C.F.R. Part 380 codifies the Commission’s regulations implementing NEPA requirements and categorically excludes certain blanket certificate applications and prior notice filings relating to interstate, natural gas pipeline facilities under 18 C.F.R. Part 157, Subpart F from NEPA review, subject to case-by-case exceptions. The NOI seeks comment on, among other topics, whether the Commission should establish additional categorical exclusions or adopt existing exclusions from other federal agencies. NOI at 14.
[4] Order No. 234, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,368 (1982); 18 C.F.R. pt. 157, subpart F (2026).
[5] 18 C.F.R. § 157.203(b).
[6] Id. at § 157.203(c).
[7] Id. at §§ 157.208(d), 157.215(a)(5).
[8] Id. at § 157.205(d)(1), (f).
[9] NOI at 7.
[10] Id.
[11] Id. at 8.
[12] Id. at 8-9.
[13] See id. at 9.
[14] See id. at 10.
[15] Id. at 12-15.
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.
You might also like
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Licenses First-of-its-Kind Fuel Fabrication Facility