On November 20, 2025, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued a Notice of Inquiry (Docket No. RM26-2-000) asking whether operators of liquefied natural gas (LNG) plants should be allowed to perform certain maintenance, repair and upgrade activities without filing a new application under the Natural Gas Act, as is currently the case. The proposal parallels a hydroelectric inquiry released the same day and draws from the Commission’s long-standing 18 C.F.R Part 157 “blanket certificate” framework for pipelines.
FERC’s goal is practical: to determine whether a similar pre-authorization process could reduce delay and administrative cost for LNG operators while maintaining safety, environmental compliance and public-interest review. If adopted, the reform will mark the first significant procedural modernization for LNG facilities in nearly half a century. Streamlining genuine maintenance and reliability work could improve both efficiency and safety.
The LNG and hydroelectric inquiries mark a modest but important step toward harmonizing FERC’s treatment of mature energy infrastructure. For LNG developers and operators, this proceeding offers a rare chance to shape definitions that could streamline project management for decades. The most useful comments will draw on the experience of 40 years under Part 157—showing where the blanket-certificate concept has succeeded, where it has strained and how its lessons can responsibly extend to LNG. Comments on the proposals are due in late January. We will share additional updates as this proceeds.
Read on to learn more about the inquiries and their implications.
Regulatory Context
Sections 3 and 7 of the Natural Gas Act divide jurisdiction over LNG terminals and interstate pipelines. Section 3 governs siting, construction and operation of LNG export and import facilities; Section 7 covers interstate transportation infrastructure. Historically, even minor LNG modifications—such as replacing valves, compressors or monitoring systems—have required individual authorization under 18 C.F.R. Parts 153 or 157.
By contrast, pipelines have operated for over 40 years under a two-tier “blanket certificate” structure: automatic authorization for low-impact projects and prior-notice authorization for larger ones. Order No. 234 (1982) created this framework, and Order No. 686 (2006) expanded it. The rule balances speed with oversight: pipelines may perform predictable, low-risk work without formal adjudication, but must still comply with environmental and reporting obligations.
The Parallel Hydroelectric Notice
The hydroelectric inquiry (RM26-3-000) released the same day asks a similar question under the Federal Power Act—whether certain post-licensing maintenance and upgrades can proceed without case-specific authorization. Together, these proceedings suggest a coordinated effort to apply a single principle: established facilities should be able to make limited, low-impact improvements through a standardized, pre-approved process. Both inquiries also anticipate categorical environmental exclusions under the National Environmental Policy Act, reinforcing that streamlined procedure need not mean reduced scrutiny.
Touchstones in Part 157 and Their Possible Adaptation
FERC’s LNG notice explicitly references Part 157 as its model. Several features likely to guide any future rulemaking include:
- Eligibility criteria. Under 18. C.F.R § 157.202(b)(2)(i), “eligible facilities” are those that are “necessary to provide service within existing certificated levels” (i.e., that restore or maintain service without expanding capacity or changing the system’s footprint).
- Two-track authorization. Automatic approval for minor projects and a short prior-notice process for larger ones, allowing limited stakeholder input without reopening a full proceeding.
- Environmental integration. Part 157 cross-references 18 C.F.R. Part 380 to require National Environmental Policy Act compliance even for blanket-authorized activities.
For LNG facilities, this structure could support a narrow list of pre-approved activities—such as safety-system replacements, control-room upgrades or emissions retrofits—subject to standard environmental and technical conditions.
Problems This Approach Could Solve
- Administrative efficiency. Operators could address small-scale maintenance and compliance projects without repetitive filings, reducing regulatory lag and cost.
- Reliability and safety. Routine work, especially on safety and control systems, could proceed faster, improving resilience and emergency response capability.
- Regulatory consistency. Aligning LNG, hydro, and pipeline procedures would modernize FERC’s administrative architecture while leaving substantive oversight intact.
Major expansions—new liquefaction trains, storage tanks or berths—would still require full Commission approval under Sections 3 and 7 of the Natural Gas Act. The rule would not displace the Department of Energy’s jurisdiction over the export of LNG or the Coast Guard’s maritime safety oversight. Environmental compliance under 18 C.F.R. Part 380 and other statutes would remain mandatory.