FERC Clarification Could Lead to Greater Use of Asset Management Agreements by Gas Producers

Oct 19, 2015

Reading Time : 4 min

Background on AMAs

AMAs are contractual relationships in which an “asset manager” agrees to manage another party’s gas supply and delivery arrangements, including its pipeline capacity.  In a delivery AMA, a large gas purchaser, such as a local distribution company or an industrial user, assigns its pipeline capacity (and possibly its gas purchase contracts) to an asset manager.  The AMA requires the asset manager to then deliver gas to the purchaser when called upon to do so under the terms of the AMA.  To the extent that there is excess pipeline capacity or surplus purchased gas, the asset manager is expected to maximize the value of those assets by making bundled sales or releasing the pipeline capacity to third parties, with revenues to be shared as provided for under the AMA.  Supply AMAs work similarly to delivery AMAs, except that, in supply AMAs, a large gas seller –most often a producer–assigns its pipeline capacity to the asset manager, who purchases and then markets the seller’s gas, sharing revenues as provided for under the terms of the AMA. 

In 2008, the Commission recognized that AMAs provide significant benefits to market participants, and took steps to facilitate greater use of AMAs.  In Order No. 712, the Commission found that AMAs maximize the utilization and value of pipeline capacity by creating a mechanism for capacity holders to use third-party experts to manager their capacity.  The Commission found that AMAs result in ultimate savings for end-use customers by providing for lower gas supply costs and more efficient use of pipeline capacity.  To facilitate greater use of AMAs, in Order No. 712, the Commission exempted qualifying AMAs (those meeting certain requirements relating to the scope of the asset manager’s gas delivery or purchase obligations) from the competitive bidding requirements of FERC’s interstate pipeline capacity release regulations.  This exemption–codified in Section 284.8 of FERC’s regulations–allows capacity holders to release pipeline capacity to an asset manager in connection with an AMA without making the capacity available for competitive bidding (though the releases are still required to be publicly posted).  Recognizing that AMAs are multifaceted agreements, the Commission also exempted qualifying AMAs from its prohibition on tying a release of interstate pipeline capacity to extraneous conditions.  Finally, the Commission determined that its prohibition on buy/sell transactions did not preclude a party from managing its own gas purchase contracts, yet relying on an asset manager to manage its pipeline capacity, even though such arrangements could involve otherwise-prohibited buy/sell transactions. 

The Buy/Sell Prohibition

The Commission’s prohibition on buy/sell transactions –established in Order No. 636 in 1992– prohibits a holder of interstate pipeline capacity from purchasing gas from a seller, transporting the gas on an interstate pipeline, and then reselling the gas back to the seller after it exits the pipeline – transactions that would allow a capacity holder to circumvent the capacity release requirements by effectively allowing another party to use its pipeline capacity.  While such buy/sell transactions are prohibited, in Order No. 712, the Commission granted “an exemption from the buy/sell prohibition for AMAs that qualify for the exemptions from bidding and tying, but only for volumes of gas delivered to the releasing shipper.”  The Commission found that it was acceptable for a gas purchaser to use an asset manager to manage its pipeline capacity while still maintaining direct responsibility for gas purchases, even though such purchases would need to be sold to the asset manager managing the pipeline capacity, potentially running afoul of the buy/sell prohibition. However, in Order No. 712, the Commission did not directly address whether supply AMAs would be similarly exempted from the buy/sell prohibition. 

FERC Expands Buy/Sell Prohibition Exemption to Supply AMAs

In its October 15, 2015, order, the Commission clarified that “buy/sell transactions in which the releasing shipper in a supply AMA sells its natural gas to its asset manager, the asset manager transports the gas over the released capacity, and the asset manager then resells the natural gas to the releasing shipper are not buy/sell transactions of the type prohibited by Order No. 636.”  The Commission found that, while Order No. 712 discussed and expressly granted a buy/sell exemption for only delivery AMAs, the exemption should nonetheless apply to “corresponding transactions conducted pursuant to a supply AMA.”  The Commission found that buy/sell transactions in connection with supply AMAs, like delivery AMAs, do not involve evasion of the capacity release regulations, because the capacity will continue to be used for the same purpose for which the releasing shipper in the supply AMA originally purchased it – to transport its natural gas to market.  Moreover, the capacity release to the asset manager in both delivery and supply AMAs is done transparently, in accordance with the Commission’s capacity release regulations (which, for AMAs, do not require competitive bidding, but do require the release to be posted).   

In light of expanded domestic natural gas production, supply AMAs have become an increasingly important tool for natural gas producers and other large sellers to manage marketing functions and pipeline capacity.  By clarifying that the buy/sell prohibition does not apply to certain buy/sell transactions with an asset manager, natural gas producers and large sellers should have more flexibility to enter into AMAs and be better positioned to benefit from the services provided by asset managers.

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.