Sens. Inhofe and Heinrich Propose to Amend Section 203 of the Federal Power Act to “Provide Parity to FERC Reviews” of Certain Energy Industry Transactions

Oct 2, 2017

Reading Time : 2 min

Section 203(a)(1)(B) currently provides that “[n]o public utility [subject to FERC jurisdiction] shall, without first having secured an order of the Commission authorizing it to do so . . . merge or consolidate, directly or indirectly, such facilities or any part thereof with those of any other person, by any means whatsoever,”3 where “such facilities” means “its facilities subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission.”4  That provision, as FERC has interpreted it, does not include any value threshold.5

The PARs Act would amend Section 203(a)(1)(B) by striking “such facilities or any part thereof” and inserting “such facilities, or any part thereof, of a value in excess of $10,000,000,” adding a value threshold of $10 million for “merge or consolidate” transactions equal to the $10 million value threshold already applicable under other parts of Section 203. The bill also would require FERC to promulgate regulations, within 180 days of enactment, requiring a public utility subject to Section 203(a)(1) to notify FERC within 30 days of the consummation of any “merge or consolidate” transaction involving jurisdictional facilities worth more than $1 million but less than $10 million.

In recent years, as we discussed here and here, several utility companies have faced FERC scrutiny for failing to obtain Section 203(a)(1)(B) authorization before consummating “merge or consolidate” transactions for low-value facilities. Adding a $10 million value threshold to Section 203(a)(1)(B) would reduce the number of transactions that require prior FERC authorization under that section, which should reduce burdens on the Commission and reduce burdens and regulatory risk for regulated entities. The new notification requirement would preserve some regulatory burden and risk associated with “merge or consolidate” transactions, but both should be relatively minimal compared to the status quo.

As Sen. Inhofe noted in a press release, “[b]y holding all energy transactions [subject to Section 203] to the same standard, we can empower FERC to operate more efficiently and eliminate burdensome requirements—saving consumers money.”6  Sen. Heinrich recognized the broader potential implications of the proposed change, noting that “[r]educing barriers for grid infrastructure investments will move us closer toward a more resilient, reliable, and secure electric grid.”7

The Subcommittee on Energy of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will consider the PARs Act on October 3, 2017.


 

1 16 U.S.C. § 824b(a)(1)(B) (2012).

2 See Press Release, Inhofe, Heinrich Introduce Bill to Provide Parity to FERC Reviews (Sept. 27, 2017), https://www.inhofe.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/inhofe-heinrich-introduce-bill-to-provide-parity-to-ferc-reviews (“Inhofe Press Release”).

3 16 U.S.C. § 824b(a)(1)(B).

4 Id. § 824b(a)(1)(A).

5 See, e.g., Transactions Subject to FPA Section 203, Order No. 669, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,200, at P 32 (2005), order on reh’g, Order No. 669-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,214, order on reh’g, Order No. 669-B, FERC Stats & Regs. ¶ 31,225 (2006).

6 Inhofe Press Release.

7 Id.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

July 8, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE) directing ISO-NE and ISO-NE participating transmission owners to show cause as to why ISO-NE’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (ISO New England Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,215 (2026) (Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 7, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in Leonard Hoffmann v. WBI Energy Transmission, Inc. (Hoffmann), which presents the question whether section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requires pipeline companies using federal eminent domain authority to pay landowners’ attorney’s fees in states where landowners can recover those fees under state law. In the decision giving rise to the Supreme Court’s review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a group of ranchers were not entitled to recover their $383,300 in attorney’s fees incurred while negotiating their compensation—creating a circuit split with four other courts of appeals. Hoffmann will be heard during the Court’s October 2026 Term, and marks the second time in five years that the Court has agreed to interpret NGA section 7.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 6, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued Trump v. Slaughter, fundamentally reshaping presidential removal authority over independent regulatory agencies. The decision overruled a 90-year-old precedent established in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had upheld the constitutionality of commissioner removal protections in the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act). As written, the FTC Act permits a commissioner’s removal “only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” In Slaughter, the Court was asked to reevaluate this standard following the President’s removal of a Democratic-appointed FTC commissioner from office in 2025 without cause. Finding for the President, the Court held that removal was permissible because the FTC Act’s for-cause removal protections for commissioners violate the separation of powers, specifically, the President’s removal power under Article II. The Court explained that the FTC exercises executive power because it promulgates binding rules, investigates and enforces those rules through administrative adjudications, and brings civil enforcement actions in federal court. It found that because it exercises these executive powers, its commissioners “must therefore be controlled by the Chief Executive, in whom such power is vested.” While previous recent cases addressing the scope of the Removal Power, Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Collins v. Yellen purported to preserve some kernel of Humphrey’s, the Court made clear that “[i]f anything more is left of Humphrey’s, we overrule it.”

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 25, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) directing CAISO and CAISO transmission owners to show cause as to why CAISO’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (California Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 195 FERC ¶ 61,214 (2026) (the Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

© 2026 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.