FERC Approvals and Balancing LNG Regulations Across Jurisdictions

Beyond U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) oversight, liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities must navigate the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approval process. They must also align with both international and state-level regulations. The complexity of overlapping jurisdictions can create challenges — but with the right guidance, projects can stay on track.

In this installment of our LNG and maritime safety series, Steve Calabrese walks through the FERC approval process. He discusses the intersection with IMO standards, and shares how AcuTech helps clients balance federal and state requirements.

A Walkthrough of FERC Approval

Q: Could you walk us through the FERC approval process for LNG facilities, from initial filing to operational readiness?

A: The FERC approval process for LNG facilities follows a well-defined sequence. It begins with the pre-filing phase, where the project developer submits initial information to FERC and starts early engagement with the U.S. Coast Guard through the Letter of Intent and Preliminary Waterway Suitability Assessment. This phase also includes outreach to state and local agencies and the start of environmental baseline studies.

Next is the formal application filing, which triggers FERC’s environmental review under NEPA. At this stage, the developer provides detailed design, siting, and safety information. FERC coordinates with other federal agencies—including the Coast Guard, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These agencies work together to evaluate safety, security, and environmental impacts. The Coast Guard’s Follow-on WSA and Letter of Recommendation are completed in parallel and feed into FERC’s decision-making.

If the project is approved, FERC issues a Final Order, which includes conditions the developer must meet during construction and prior to operations. From there, the facility enters the construction phase. During this phase, FERC conducts inspections and verifies compliance with the approved design and safety requirements. Finally, before operations can begin, FERC requires readiness reviews and inspections to confirm that the facility has the necessary systems, procedures, and emergency response plans in place.

In practice, this process ensures that LNG projects are evaluated from concept to commissioning not only for regulatory compliance but also for safety, security, and environmental performance.

The Intersection of FERC and IMO

Q: What challenges arise when coordinating FERC approvals with IMO compliance for LNG and related facilities?

A: FERC approvals and International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) compliance address two very different but connected parts of the LNG supply chain. FERC’s role is strictly facility-focused—reviewing siting, design, construction, and environmental impacts under the Natural Gas Act and NEPA. By contrast, IMO standards such as SOLAS, MARPOL, and the IGF Code apply to vessels and their safe operation, and in the U.S. are administered through the Coast Guard under the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) framework.

The challenge is not that FERC and IMO overlap. It is that projects must be developed in a way that aligns facility approvals with vessel requirements. For example, an LNG terminal approved by FERC must be designed with mooring arrangements, transfer systems, and safety zones that can accommodate vessels built to IMO standards. The Coast Guard plays the critical role of ensuring that U.S. facility approvals account for those vessel-side requirements through the Waterway Suitability Assessment (WSA) and Letter of Recommendation process.

In practice, the challenges typically arise when project timelines or assumptions about vessel design don’t align with facility planning. If a developer advances a facility design without confirming compatibility with the types of LNG carriers or bunkering vessels expected to call, gaps can emerge in safety systems, transfer procedures, or security planning. The key is early coordination. FERC’s facility requirements and IMO vessel compliance must be treated as parallel tracks, synchronized through Coast Guard oversight.

Balancing USCG, FERC, and State Regulations

Q: How do you coordinate between federal (USCG, FERC) and state agencies to ensure full compliance for LNG projects?

A: Coordinating between federal and state agencies begins with recognizing that each has a distinct but complementary role in LNG project oversight. At the federal level, FERC leads the facility approval process under the Natural Gas Act and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), while the U.S. Coast Guard manages maritime safety and security requirements through the WSA process and Letters of Recommendation under 33 CFR Part 127. At the state level, agencies are typically responsible for environmental permitting, coastal zone management, and water quality certifications. They also handle air permits and, in some cases, land use approvals.

The key to ensuring compliance is early and continuous engagement. During the pre-filing phase with FERC, we typically begin outreach to state agencies—such as state environmental quality departments or coastal zone management authorities. This allows their requirements to be integrated alongside federal milestones. At the same time, we work closely with the Coast Guard to ensure that the Preliminary and Follow-on WSAs reflect not only federal risk management expectations but also regional considerations such as emergency response capabilities, port traffic, and local community safety concerns.

Equally important is maintaining continuous engagement throughout project development. Regulations, agency expectations, and project designs evolve over time, and without sustained communication, even small disconnects can become significant delays. By engaging regularly—through workshops, technical reviews, and joint planning sessions—developers can align FERC’s federal review with Coast Guard requirements. They can also address state permitting obligations in real time. This ensures that stakeholder concerns are addressed as they arise. It also keeps federal and state processes synchronized from initial filing through construction and operations.

Ultimately, successful coordination comes down to transparency and alignment of timelines. By structuring the project’s regulatory roadmap to account for both federal and state processes, and by maintaining open communication among all parties, we can avoid delays and ensure that LNG projects achieve full compliance at every level of government.

Conflicting State & Federal Regulations

Q: Can you share examples where state and federal regulations conflicted, and how those were resolved?

A: Conflicts between state and federal requirements are not uncommon in LNG project development. This happens particularly in areas where environmental or land-use permitting intersects with federal safety and siting approvals. A good example is when state coastal zone management requirements impose conditions on shoreline development that may not align cleanly with federally approved facility layouts under FERC’s jurisdiction. In these cases, the state may require modifications to minimize shoreline impacts or protect sensitive habitats. Meanwhile, FERC and the Coast Guard are primarily concerned with safe siting and navigational suitability.

Another common area of conflict is in emergency response planning. The U.S. Coast Guard requires that WSAs and facility security plans address maritime safety and public protection under 33 CFR Part 127 and MTSA. At the same time, state emergency management agencies often require their own planning and resource assessments, which may include additional protective actions for nearby communities. For example, this can create duplication or even conflicting assumptions about shelter-in-place versus evacuation strategies.

These conflicts are best resolved through early and sustained coordination. For example, engaging FERC, the Coast Guard, and state agencies early in the conversation allows each to understand the others’ mandates and find practical compromises. In some cases, this has meant making design modifications to address state environmental conditions while still meeting Coast Guard safety requirements. In other cases, it has meant integrating state-level protective actions into federally required response plans. This ensures that one plan satisfies both sets of requirements.

Ultimately, these conflicts aren’t barriers so much as points of negotiation. By maintaining transparency and focusing on shared goals—public safety, environmental protection, and regulatory compliance—it’s possible to resolve differences effectively. This approach strengthens the overall project approval and operational framework.

Closing Thoughts

FERC approvals, international standards, and state-level oversight can create a maze of regulatory challenges. With deep experience across these jurisdictions, AcuTech helps clients anticipate roadblocks and resolve conflicts. We also support clients in maintaining compliance throughout every stage of an LNG project.

Meet Steve at the 21st Americas LNG Summit & Exhibition in Lake Charles, October 19–21, 2025. Visit our booth to learn more about how AcuTech supports clients through these complex regulatory landscapes.