Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agency Independence topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
FERC chair says agency hasn’t been told to change course after FTC firings; Humphrey’s Executor case looms
Summary
FERC Chairman told reporters he has received no directive to remove commissioners and noted a Humphrey’s Executor test case is headed toward the Supreme Court; DOJ worked with FERC on litigation filings and the agency sees no immediate obstruction to its work.
FERC’s chairman told reporters the commission had not been directed to change its operations after recent high‑profile firings of other agency officials and that he had no indication the White House planned similar actions against FERC commissioners.
Asked whether the recent dismissals of Federal Trade Commission officials raised a risk to FERC’s independence, the chairman said the only lawyers currently arguing for at‑will removal of commissioners are counsel in a case pending in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. He noted the argument is likely to reach the Supreme Court as a test of Humphrey’s Executor, the 1935 decision limiting presidential removal powers for certain independent agencies. FERC worked with the Department of Justice on filings in the litigation, he said.
When pressed on the recent D.C. Circuit decision that vacated and then returned certain LNG matters to FERC for supplemental environmental‑justice analysis, the chairman described that ruling as favorable because the court declined to impose vacatur that would have halted construction. He said the court found the commission’s prior environmental‑justice analysis insufficient in scope and remanded the cases for FERC to determine what supplemental work is required.
The chairman emphasized that FERC continues to perform its statutory functions and that the agency has communicated with OMB and other White House offices about budget and procedural matters. He also said the commission takes transparency questions seriously and would have the Office of Energy Policy and Analysis or OEA staff review sunshine notices if clearer language is warranted.
