U.S. Department of Energy Seeks Input on Bulk-Power System Executive Order

On August 26, 2026, President Trump issued Executive Order 14421, "Declaring a National Emergency to Secure the United States Bulk-Power System." In our earlier alert, we discussed the Executive Order's broad grant of authority to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), its immediate implications for project procurement and contracting, and the significant uncertainty surrounding implementation.

DOE has now taken its first formal step toward implementation by issuing a Request for Information (RFI) (91 FR 57322), seeking input from industry and other stakeholders. Although the RFI does not impose new requirements or propose defined terms, it provides the clearest indication yet of the issues DOE is evaluating as it develops regulations and other implementation measures.

DOE is seeking "public input to develop practical, risk-informed, and administrable approaches to implementing E.O. 14421." DOE has posed numbered questions, several with multiple parts, seeking input from industry. For energy and data center developers, the most consequential questions concern: (1) the scope of covered equipment and transactions; (2) Covered Foreign Entity and supply-chain analysis; (3) software, firmware, digital services, maintenance, and remote access; (4) existing equipment and mitigation; (5) licensing and prequalification; and (6) the cost, schedule, reliability, and market effects of implementation.

A public meeting via webinar will be held on Wednesday, September 16, 2026, from 3-4 p.m. EDT. Written responses to the RFI are due by October 9, 2026.

What the RFI Tells Us: Life Cycle and Operations, Not Just Equipment Procurement

Our previous alert discussed how EO 14421 left many critical implementation questions unanswered. The RFI now confirms that DOE is evaluating many of those same issues and is focused not just on procurement risks, but on life cycle and operational relationships.

The RFI seeks information from stakeholders on how DOE should think about a number of risks, including:

• which equipment, applications, and transactions should be covered, including how to identify bulk-power system electric equipment;
• how DOE should determine whether equipment is "foreign-produced";
• how ownership, control, jurisdiction, direction, and influence should be evaluated;
• how far companies can reasonably trace sub-tier supply chains;
• when software, firmware, digital services, maintenance services, and remote-access capabilities are sufficiently associated with physical equipment to warrant review;
• how existing equipment should be inventoried, evaluated, and mitigated;
• how licensing, mitigation, and vendor-prequalification processes should operate; and
• how implementation may affect equipment cost, lead times, project schedules, reliability, financing, insurance, warranties, and contractual risk allocation.

The RFI signals that DOE is likely to take a broader view, beyond the transformers, inverters, battery storage systems, turbines, relays, and other electrical infrastructure, and look well beyond the physical equipment to software, firmware, digital services, maintenance services, or remote-access capabilities associated with the covered physical equipment.

Identifying Practical Constraints Before Rulemaking

The RFI appears to be asking industry: What can industry reasonably do? DOE may already know what may be ideal from a security perspective and is likely seeking additional information to answer a much more difficult question: What can actually be implemented without crippling procurement, online dates, and operational maintenance requirements.

Many of the technical, cybersecurity, and supply-chain issues identified in the RFI are not new to DOE or the broader national security community. What is notable, however, is the extent to which DOE is seeking detailed industry input regarding implementation feasibility, supply-chain transparency, replacement constraints, software and firmware governance, operational impacts, and economic consequences. The RFI appears designed as much to understand how potential implementation measures would operate in practice as to identify the underlying security risks that prompted EO 14421.

Future Legal Framework for Vendor Qualification and Licensing

The Executive Order contemplated licensing, exceptions, mitigation measures, and vendor-prequalification concepts. The RFI now seeks stakeholder input regarding:

• the information license applications should contain;
• appropriate review timelines;
• emergency circumstances;
• pending procurements;
• vendor prequalification procedures; and
• mitigation measures that could accompany approvals.

Although DOE has not proposed a specific legal framework, the RFI suggests the DOE is considering mechanisms that could permit some transactions to proceed subject to review, mitigation, licensing, or supplier qualification requirements.

Domestic Manufacturing Capacity

The RFI asks industry to weigh in on what categories of equipment and inputs are materially dependent on foreign sources, what U.S. manufacturing capacity currently exists and how it could expand, what secure replacement alternatives are available, and how federal procurement can prioritize U.S.-manufactured energy infrastructure while preserving competition, reliability, and timely delivery. This is a direct signal that DOE is treating the domestic manufacturing capacity section (F) of the Executive Order as a first-tier priority alongside the prohibition and licensing framework.

Next Steps

As stated above, RFI responses are due Friday, October 9, 2026. Interested parties may attend an informational webinar to be held on Wednesday, September 16, 2026, from 3-4 p.m. EDT by clicking the link provided in the RFI (91 FR 57322). For parties that may not want to respond individually, DWT recommends that interested trade associations comment on their behalf.

DWT will continue to analyze the potential opportunities to engage and provide responsive information to DOE.

+++

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.