DOE's Bulk-Power System RFI Webinar Features Important Takeaways for Stakeholders

On September 16, 2026, the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Cybersecurity, Energy, Security, and Emergency Response (CESER) held an informational webinar described in DOE's Request for Information (91 Fed. Reg. 57,322) (RFI) to inform DOE actions to implement Executive Order 14421, "Declaring a National Emergency to Secure the United States Bulk-Power System" (Order). DOE used the webinar to set expectations for comments and to answer frequently asked questions about the scope of the Order, describing the RFI as an information-gathering exercise that will be used to build the record ahead of its December 24, 2026, rulemaking deadline. Written responses are due October 9, 2026, and DOE gave concrete guidance on what a useful response should look like.

We previously covered the Order's scope and its immediate procurement and contracting implications and the RFI as the first formal step toward implementing regulations.

One clarification in particular—DOE's reading of the "as needed" language in Section 3(b) of the Order—suggests the initial rules implementing the Order may be narrower than the RFI implies, which affects how commenters should frame their submissions.

DOE Reiterated: No Determination, No Safe Harbor, No Change to the Order's Text

DOE used a substantial part of the webinar to walk through frequently asked questions about the scope of the Order. DOE explicitly affirmed that the Order does not immediately prohibit transactions involving foreign-made bulk power system (BPS) equipment, and that any prohibition still requires DOE to make the covered-entity and risk findings specified in the Order. When asked how pending or ongoing transactions should be treated, DOE suggested that commenters describe any relevant facts surrounding pending or ongoing transactions and submit them in the docket as a response to the RFI, noting that the RFI itself does not affect or implicate any specific transaction. In response to whether existing installed BPS equipment can be affected, DOE's answer was "potentially," but only after completing the findings, consultation, and reliability and safety considerations that the Order requires.

DOE reiterated that participation in the webinar or the submission of comments to the RFI create no compliance determination, safe harbor, or preferred treatment for any participant.

Implementation Scope and Timing in Section 3(b) of the Executive Order

One clarification from DOE's CESER Director Andrew McClure is noteworthy: Section 3(b) of the Order directs the Secretary to publish implementing rules or regulations within 120 days "as needed." One practical interpretation is that DOE may not consider itself bound to issue a single, comprehensive rule addressing every open question by December 24, 2026. Stakeholders anticipating and endorsing a comprehensive initial issuance of implementing regulations should stress that endorsement in their submissions, rather than assuming DOE will issue regulations with the same breadth and scope as the Order and the RFI.

DOE's Suggested Framework for How to Respond to RFI Questions on Existing Equipment

As noted in our previous alerts, the treatment of existing BPS equipment remains a key focus of the RFI. The RFI (Section D) framed questions for existing equipment using a four-stage framework, outlined below.

1. Inventory: manufacturer, model, serial number, production facility, install date, firmware/software versions, connectivity, service provider, support status, and replacement lead time.
2. Analyze: origin, ownership, remote access, risk, reliability, safety, secure-replacement availability, and continuity of essential service.
3. Mitigate: identification, isolation, monitoring, security enhancements, disconnection, replacement, removal, remote-access restrictions, firmware changes, or vendor transition.
4. Verify: reporting, testing, inspection, attestation, independent assessment, change notification, and recordkeeping.

Director McClure was careful to explain that this four-stage framework is an organizing device for commenters' responses to DOE's questions, not a prescriptive rubric for all commenters. The framing provides insight into the categories of information DOE is likely to expect utilities and operators to produce.

DOE's Tips for Useful Comments on the RFI

DOE offered a concrete, six-part rubric for an effective RFI response:

1. Identify the question number or topic being addressed.
2. Define the scope—the equipment, service, transaction type, region, or business model the response covers.
3. Provide evidence—data, business records, standards, testing, technical studies, or non-sensitive case studies.
4. State assumptions, methodology, time period, and confidence level; label estimates as estimates.
5. Address impacts—security, reliability, safety, cost, schedule, workforce, supply chain, and small-entity effects.
6. Offer a workable alternative or mitigation path where a problem is identified.

A focused, well-supported response centered on a commenter's actual experience is more useful to DOE than broad, unsupported assertions across all 50+ questions. Aggregated or anonymized submissions are welcome where transaction- or system-specific detail is sensitive, provided the response explains the population represented and the method used to compile it.

A Reminder about Ex Parte Contacts

One procedural detail deserves particular attention for clients considering private conversations with DOE about the proceeding. DOE confirmed it is following a "permit but disclose" ex parte process. Under this process, any in-person meeting or call with DOE personnel concerning the merits or outcome of the proceeding requires a memorandum for the public docket, officially called a Memorandum of Ex Parte Communication. The memorandum must identify the date and attendees of the meeting or call, and summarize the substantive issues discussed. Consistent with DOE's "Guidance on Ex Parte Communications in Rulemaking Proceedings" from October 2009, the interested party is responsible for filing it no later than a week after the meeting or call. DOE described its own role in such meetings as listening and asking clarifying questions, not negotiating rule content or previewing the forthcoming rule. A private meeting creates no preferred access to DOE's decision-making process. Parties that want a private DOE meeting should consider and plan for the disclosure obligation before requesting one.

Practical Recommendations

Building on the checklist in our August 2026 alert, companies preparing to submit responses to the RFI before the October 9, 2026, deadline should consider the following:

1. Track the "as needed" question specifically. A view on whether DOE's initial regulations should be comprehensive or narrowly targeted is worth stating directly, given DOE's own signal that this is a specific design choice.
2. Build responses around DOE's six-part structure, rather than submitting a narrative memo.
3. Decide, section by section, whether to respond individually, jointly, or through a trade association. As we noted in our prior alert, a trade association or coalition submission may be the more efficient path for less sensitive, industrywide information. Company-specific cost data, supply-chain detail, or case studies are better suited to an individual or aggregated-but-attributed response.
4. Keep confidential business information entirely out of RFI comments filed on regulations.gov and use the two-copy confidential and non-confidential email process with redactions for the non-confidential (public) version as described in the RFI for anything that requires confidential treatment.

Looking Ahead

DOE's stated timeline remains:

• Written responses to the RFI are due October 9, 2026.
• DOE reviews the record of responses.
• After DOE's review of responses, implementing rules due to be issued by December 24, 2026 (120 days after issuance of the Order).
• DOE, in consultation with the Federal Acquisition Regulation Council, must develop recommended revisions to Federal Acquisition Regulations, per Sections 4(a) and 4(b) of the Order, by February 22, 2027 (180 days after issuance of the Order).

DWT will continue to monitor developments and is available to assist clients preparing RFI responses, evaluating existing equipment exposure, or considering trade association coordination ahead of the October 9, 2026, deadline.

+++

Nicholas A. Giannasca is a partner in DWT's Washington, D.C., office and a member of our energy, natural resources & environmental practice group. Elaine Albrich is a partner in our Portland office and co-chair of the energy, natural resources & environmental practice group. Wendy Kearns is partner-in-charge of DWT's Seattle office and co-leader of the firm's technology industry group. Samin Peirovi is an associate in our Washington, D.C., office and a member of our energy, natural resources & environmental practice group. For any questions, please contact the authors or another member of our energy, natural resources & environmental and technology teams. To stay informed, sign up for our alerts.