A Simple Framework for Determining Whether Dodd-Frank Applies to Your Energy Trade

Jan 2, 2014

Reading Time : 4 min

The CFTC’s definition of “swap” generally includes financial derivatives such as contracts-for-differences that are settled against a price index or a futures contract.2 Forward contracts that are intended to be physically settled, contracts for full requirements or full output that are intended to be physically settled, and leases and lease-like arrangements such as tolling agreements generally are not regulated as swaps.3

There are important exceptions for “end users,” bona fide hedging, and trades in organized electric markets; however, even if an exception applies, the contract still may be subject to Dodd-Frank’s data collection and reporting requirements if it meets the definition of “swap.

2. Is the company an Eligible Contract Participant?

If the contract is a swap and no exception applies, then it needs to be executed on an organized exchange or else each party needs to qualify as an Eligible Contract Participant (“ECP”).  Only ECPs may enter into bilateral, over-the-counter swaps.  ECPs include entities that have, or have a guarantor that has, $10 million in assets.4 Entities with a net worth of only $1 million may be considered ECPs, but only with respect to swaps that are entered into for the purpose of hedging risk.5 

3. Is the company a “Swap Dealer” or “Major Swap Participant”?

Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants are subject to extensive regulation under Dodd-Frank so market participants will want to avoid these designations.  It is unlikely that any single transaction will result in a company falling into either of these categories, although any company that engages in a large volume of swaps needs to be aware of how these categories are defined and what exemptions could apply. 

Again, the CFTC’s rules are complex.  The final rule defining the terms “swap dealer” and “major swap participant” runs 169 Federal Register pages.6 

In general, a swap dealer is a person who:  (a) holds themself out as a dealer in swaps; (b) makes a market in swaps; (c) regularly enters into swaps in the ordinary course of business; or (d) engages in any activity causing them to be known as a swap dealer.7  If a company engages in activities that could cause it to be classified as a swap dealer, it may fall under the “de minimis exception” which excludes a company from the “swap dealer” category if, over the immediately preceding 12-month period, its aggregate swap dealing activities do not exceed the gross “notional amount” of $3 billion ($8 billion during the initial phase-in period),8 excluding hedges.9  Entities under common control are considered one company for the purposes of this calculation.10

In general, a “major swap participant” is a person other than a swap dealer that (a) maintains a substantial position in swaps for any of the major swap categories, excluding positions for hedging or mitigating commercial risk, (b) has outstanding swaps that create substantial counterparty exposure that could have “serious adverse effects” on the financial stability of the U.S. banking system or financial system, or (c) is a highly leveraged financial entity that maintains a substantial position in any major swap category.11  The intent is to identify those entities whose exposure to swaps poses market risks that, in the view of the CFTC, warrant enhanced regulatory oversight and control.

4. Is the contract subject to mandatory clearing requirements?

As of December 2013, only interest rate swaps and credit default swaps are subject to mandatory clearing,12 but the CFTC has stated that other classes of swaps may become subject to mandatory clearing in the future. 

5. Is the contract subject to position limits? 

The CFTC has issued proposed rules regarding speculative position limits for certain products, but there are currently no position limit rules in effect.13 The proposed speculative position limits would apply to financial derivatives that settle against four core energy commodity futures contracts and economically equivalent products.  The core energy commodity futures contracts are (1) New York Mercantile Exchange Light Sweet Crude Oil, (2) New York Mercantile Exchange New York Harbor ULSO, (3) New York Mercantile Exchange RBOB Gasoline Blendstock, and (4) New York Mercantile Exchange Henry Hub Natural Gas.  For more information on speculative position limits, see our December 23, 2013 blog, “CFTC Re-Proposes Position Limits for Certain Commodity Futures Contracts and Economically Equivalent Swaps.”

6. Is the contract subject to mandatory reporting and recordkeeping requirements?

Companies are required to keep full, complete and systematic records of all swaps to which they are counterparties.  Information on a swap must be retained for at least five years following termination of the swap.  These records must be readily retrievable throughout the life of the swap and for two years thereafter, but can then be archived.14   

All swaps must be reported to a swap data repository.  If the swap was not cleared on an exchange, then one of the parties must do the reporting.  If one party is a Swap Dealer, Major Swap Participant, or a financial entity, that entity will be responsible for reporting the swap.  If neither party falls into those categories, the parties must determine between themselves which entity will be responsible for reporting.15


1 Further Definition of “Swap,” “Security-Based Swap” and “Security-Based Swap Agreement,” 77 Fed. Reg. 48208 (Aug. 13, 2012).

2 See 7 U.S.C. § 1a(47)(A) (2012).

3 See id. § 1a(47)(B); Further Definition of “Swap,” “Security-Based Swap” and “Security-Based Swap Agreement,” 77 Fed. Reg. 48,208, 48,227-43 (Aug. 13, 2012).

4 7 U.S.C. § 1a(18).

5 Id.

6 Further Definition of “Swap Dealer,” “Security-Based Swap Dealer,” “Major Swap Participant,” “Major Security-Based Swap Participant” and “Eligible Contract Participant,” 77 Fed. Reg. 30596 (May 23, 2012).

7 7 U.S.C. § 1a(49); 17 C.F.R. § 1.3(ggg).

8 In May 2015, the CFTC staff will prepare a study of the derivative markets.  Nine months after this study, the CFTC may end the phase-in period or propose new de minimis rules.  Otherwise, the five-year phase-in period will automatically terminate in October 2017.  17 C.F.R. § 1.3(ggg)(4)(ii).

9 7 U.S.C. § 1a(49)(D); 17 C.F.R. § 1.3(ggg)(4).

10 Further Definition of “Swap Dealer,” “Security-Based Swap Dealer,” “Major Swap Participant,” “Major Security-Based Swap Participant” and “Eligible Contract Participant,” 77 Fed. Reg. 30,596, 30,631 (May 23, 2012) (“Further Definition”).

11 7 U.S.C. § 1a(33); 17 C.F.R. § 1.3(hhh)(1)(ii)(C).

12 Clearing Requirement Determination Under § 2(h) of the CEA, 77 Fed. Reg. 74,284 (Dec. 13, 2012).

13 Position Limits for Derivatives, 78 Fed. Reg. 75680 (December 12, 2013).

14 Swap Data Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements, 77 Fed. Reg. 2136, 2141-42 (Jan. 13, 2012).

15 Id. at 2137, 2153.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

October 9, 2025

On October 1, 2025, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued Order No. 914 amending certain Commission regulations to incorporate a conditional sunset date in compliance with the Trump administration’s April 2025 Executive Order, “Zero-Based Regulatory Budgeting to Unleash American Energy” (the EO).

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

October 8, 2025

Akin is pleased to serve as a gold sponsor for Infocast’s Energy Independence Summit in Houston, October 21-23. Energy partner Charlie Ofner will moderate the Macroeconomics of Domestic Energy Independence panel, projects & energy transition partner Shariff Barakat will lead Opportunities in US Manufacturing: How Big, How Fast, How FEOC?, and counsel Taha Qureshi will guide the discussion on Cornerstones for Energy Independence: Investing in Grid Security & Cybersecurity.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

October 6, 2025

As of October 6, 2025, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) continues to operate despite the lapse in appropriations that resulted in a government shutdown on October 1, 2025. While FERC receives appropriations from Congress, it primarily is self-funded through fees and charges obtained from the industries it regulates, offsetting its total costs. Hence, during prior government shutdowns in 2018 and 2013, the agency was able to continue operations. However, FERC published a plan for operating in the event of a lapse in appropriations on September 30, 2025, available here

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

September 8, 2025

On September 4, 2025, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee convened a hearing to consider the nominations of Laura Swett and David LaCerte to serve as commissioners at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission). Swett is a former FERC Staff that served as legal and policy advisor to former FERC Chairman Kevin McIntyre and Commission Bernard McNamee. LaCerte is an attorney in private practice that previously held positions at the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board and the Louisiana Department of Veterans Affairs.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

September 9, 2025

On August 29, 2025, Christopher Wright, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) submitted a proposal to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) under section 403 of the Department of Energy Organization Act (DOE Organization Act), asking that FERC terminate its long-running proceeding in Docket No. PL18-1, which addresses proposed updates to its policy statement on the Certification of New Interstate Natural Gas Facilities. The docket resulted in a draft policy statement that has never been finalized, nor relied upon by FERC in a published order, but would require FERC to consider environmental impacts and potential mitigation prior to making a public interest determination under the Natural Gas Act (NGA). The Secretary asks FERC to rescind the draft policy statement in its entirety to remove any uncertainty in gas infrastructure development. Rescission would require FERC to initiate a new docket and develop a new record should it want to reinitiate similar policy changes in the future.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

August 15, 2025

On August 8, 2025, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued an enforcement order in Skye MS, LLC (Skye) and levied a $45,000 civil penalty on an intrastate pipeline operator in Mississippi, resolving an investigation into the operator’s violations of section 311 (Section 311) of the Natural Gas Policy Act (NGPA). FERC faulted the operator for providing a Section 311 transportation service without timely filing a Statement of Operating Conditions (SOC) and obtaining FERC’s approval for the transportation rates. Section 311 permits intrastate pipelines to transport interstate gas “on behalf of” interstate pipelines without becoming subject to FERC’s more extensive Natural Gas Act (NGA) jurisdiction, but requires the intrastate pipeline to have an SOC stating the rates and terms and conditions of service on file with FERC within 30 days of providing the interstate service. Under the NGPA, Section 311 rates must be “fair and equitable” and approved by FERC. In Skye, FERC stated that the operator began providing Section 311 service on certain pipeline segments in Mississippi in May 2023, following their acquisition from another Section 311 operator, but did not file an SOC with FERC until April 2025. The order ties the penalty to the approximately two-year delay between commencement of the Section 311 service and the SOC filing date. The pipeline operator was also ordered to provide an annual compliance report and to abide by additional verification requirements related to the filing of its FERC Form No. 549D, the Quarterly Transportation & Storage Report for Intrastate Natural Gas and Hinshaw Pipelines.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

August 6, 2025

In Sierra Club v. FERC, No. 24-1199 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 1, 2025), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) upheld the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) approval of a 1,000-foot natural gas pipeline segment crossing the United States-Mexico border (the Border Pipeline) under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), rejecting environmental groups’ challenges that FERC improperly limited its analysis under both the NGA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as related to a 155-mile intrastate “Connector Pipeline” constructed upstream of the Border Pipeline in Texas.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 17, 2025

On July 15, 2025, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) issued an order1 proposing to eliminate the soft price cap of $1,000 per megawatt-hour (MWh) for bilateral spot sales in the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) that was implemented following the California energy crisis. If adopted, the Commission’s proposal would eliminate the requirement that sellers make a filing with FERC cost justifying spot market sales in excess of the soft price cap, which have become increasingly common in recent years as market conditions have continued to tighten throughout the West. Eliminating the WECC soft price cap would provide sellers that make sales during periods when prices exceed the cap greater certainty that their sales will not be second guessed after the fact.

...

Read More

© 2025 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.