DOE and FERC Step on the Gas: LNG in the New Trump Administration

The Trump administration has wasted no time in moving to fast-track regulatory approval of liquefied natural gas (LNG) infrastructure. The Department of Energy (DOE) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)—the two agencies that share oversight of LNG export terminal projects (“LNG Terminals”)—are reshaping the regulatory landscape to ease approval of new LNG infrastructure.

Traditionally, LNG Terminals have faced lengthy reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), with the preparation and revision of environmental impact statements (EIS), often stretching out for years.^[1] Sponsors must clear both FERC (for construction) and DOE (for exports), creating a process that is notorious for delays. FERC has the authority for approving the “siting, construction, expansion, or operation of an LNG terminal,” while the DOE has the “exclusive authority over the export of LNG as a commodity.”^[2]

Now, in response to the President Trump’s “Unleashing American Energy” agenda,^[3] DOE and FERC have taken steps to cut red tape, speed approvals, and broaden discretion in environmental review. For project developers, this shift promises shorter timelines—and new strategic considerations—as the Trump administration pushes to expand U.S. LNG exports.

Rescission of NEPA Implementing Regulations

The Trump administration has moved to completely change the way that agencies apply NEPA by rescinding the existing regulations governing NEPA review.^[4] NEPA’s statutory language requires that federal agencies conduct environmental reviews for all “major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.”^[5] When an agency determines that an action is a “major federal action,” it must prepare a detailed EIS.^[6] An EIS “forces the agency to take a ‘hard look’ at the environmental consequences of its actions” and “ensures that these environmental consequences, and the agency’s consideration of them, are disclosed to the public.”^[7]

Since 1978, agencies have relied on NEPA-implementing regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) when conducting environmental reviews. Many agencies, including FERC, have applied the CEQ’s regulations or referred to them in their own NEPA-implementing regulations.^[8] However, Unleashing American Energy revoked the executive order that gave the CEQ the authority to issue these regulations and directed the agency to rescind them within 30 days.^[9] The CEQ subsequently issued an Interim Final Rule rescinding the regulations.^[10] On July 3, 2025, FERC issued a final rule revising its NEPA-implementing regulations to conform to the change.^[11] The DOE followed suit with an Interim Final Rule issued the same day.^[12]

While FERC’s changes simply removed all cross-references to the CEQ, the DOE’s changes were more significant. In addition to removing all references to the CEQ, the DOE revised its regulations “so that it includes only DOE’s existing categorical exclusions in appendix B, related requirements, and a provision for emergency circumstances.”^[13] All of the DOE’s other NEPA procedures were removed from the Code of Federal Regulations and moved to a document titled U.S. Department of Energy National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures.^[14] Unlike the prior regulations, these procedures are non-binding and do not “impose legal obligations upon DOE,” and the agency is free to “adopt approaches on a case-by-case basis that differ from those described in these procedures.”^[15]

Elimination of Stays on LNG Facility Construction While Rehearing Is Pending

Natural Gas Act (NGA) § 7 requires that parties opposing FERC’s approval of a construction project first request rehearing before FERC before they can seek judicial review of the approval. Under Order No. 871, FERC had previously barred construction of LNG and pipeline projects while those rehearing requests were pending.^[16]

On June 18, 2025, FERC voted unanimously to at least temporarily permit construction to go forward while FERC considered rehearing requests by approving a one-year waiver of Order No. 871^[17] and issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to permanently rescind that order.^[18] FERC cited the “pressing nationwide near-term demand for expanded natural gas transportation capacity, as well as the reliability concerns associated with maintaining the natural gas system” as its reasons for the policy change.^[19] Both the waiver and the potential permanent rescission of Order No. 871 have the potential “to expedite efficient energy development and reduce construction delays resulting from” pending rehearing requests.^[20]

Expansion of Blanket Certificate Authority

FERC has issued a waiver and Notice of Inquiry for regulations pertaining to a certificate holder’s blanket certificate authority. Under NGA §7, interstate natural gas pipelines that hold a certificate of public convenience and necessity can conduct certain construction activities without first seeking case-specific authorizations, if those activities fall below a certain cost threshold.^[21] The cost threshold was last increased to $41,100,000 in 2024.^[22] If the construction activity falls below this threshold, the certificate holder can file a “prior notice request” for authorization with the Commission, and the Commission will provide notice of the request in the Federal Register.^[23] If no one protests the request within 60 days, the certificate holder can commence construction on the project.^[24]

On June 18, FERC unanimously approved a two-year waiver increasing the cost threshold.^[25] The waiver order increases the threshold to $61,650,000.^[26] The Commission also issued a Notice of Inquiry to consider permanent revisions to the cost threshold.^[27] The Notice of Inquiry requests comments on whether FERC should include more projects within the scope of blanket certificate authorization, what the cost threshold should be, and what the rate treatment should be for these projects.^[28]

Department of Energy LNG Export Study

Under section 3(a) of the Natural Gas Act, the DOE must approve natural gas export requests unless it finds that the proposed export “will not be consistent with the public interest.”^[29] Exports to countries with which the United States has a free-trade agreement requiring national treatment for natural gas (FTA) are automatically deemed to be in the public interest.^[30] For non-FTA countries, courts and the DOE have traditionally relied on a rebuttable presumption favoring exports.^[31] However, on January 26, 2024, the Biden administration’s DOE paused approvals until it completed a 2024 study on LNG exports, which studied whether these exports were in fact “in the public interest.”^[32] The study, which the DOE published on December 20, 2024, did not make any definitive findings on whether LNG exports were in the public interest, but it was negative in its evaluation of LNG exports.^[33]

The Trump administration DOE reversed course when finalizing the 2024 study in a Response to Comments, striking a much more supportive tone.^[34] The final report concluded “that exports of LNG from the United States will not be inconsistent with the public interest.”^[35]

Courts Focus on Ensuring Approvals Are Adequately Supported

Over the last year, the judiciary has continued to evaluate agency approvals on a case-by-case basis, and the outcomes have largely turned on whether an agency supported its LNG approval with adequate reasoning and evidence. In City of Port Isabel v. FERC,^[36] the D.C. Circuit considered petitions for review challenging the FERC reauthorization of two LNG terminals and an associated pipeline in Texas. The Court found that FERC did not adequately support its order and erred by failing (1) to issue supplemental EIS addressing environmental justice; (2) to treat a proposed carbon capture system (CCS) as a connected action; (3) to treat that CCS system as a reasonable alternative; and (4) to adequately explain why it decided to consider air quality data.^[37] The court initially vacated the FERC’s approvals, but it reconsidered and remanded them instead.^[38] FERC is now evaluating the decision and preparing to act on remand.

In Sierra Club v. Louisiana Dep’t of Environmental Quality,^[39] the Fifth Circuit evaluated whether the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) erred by issuing pre-construction permits for the Commonwealth LNG, LLC (“Commonwealth”) LNG export facility in Cameron Parish, Louisiana. The Sierra Club asked for the permits to be vacated because the LDEQ’s decision was arbitrary and capricious, since the facility’s emissions will exceed National Ambient Air Quality Standards, and the LDEQ failed to require Commonwealth to use the best available control technology to limit those emissions. The court rejected the challenge, finding that state law review standards govern federal review of state environmental permitting, and that LDEQ met those standards. The project now remains scheduled for a 2026 startup.

Conclusion

The actions of both the DOE and FERC demonstrate the new administration’s intent to increase the export of LNG and the construction of such projects. Consistent with this goal, the DOE has granted Final Export Authorization to LNG terminals in Jefferson County, Texas^[40] and Cameron Parish, Louisiana,^[41] as well as several grants of additional time to begin LNG exports.^[42] As for FERC, it also approved the Cameron Parish LNG terminal in May 2025.^[43] For its part, FERC has authorized several LNG construction projects in the last year.^[44] While these changes will be welcome to developers seeking to construct LNG Terminals, the swift change in policy has also generated uncertainty about the future for LNG regulation.

Venable’s Energy Group is at the forefront of these legal and policy issues. It helps LNG Terminal investors and liquids pipeline shippers manage uncertainty and secure regulatory approvals before DOE and FERC. It recognizes that issues related to LNG regulation are challenging and interrelated, and we are ready to advise clients as they confront these and other issues.