Repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 and Enactment of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005, 42750-42756 [E6-12048]
Download as PDF
42750
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 145 / Friday, July 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
the Statement of Policy of the Secretary
of Agriculture effective July 24, 1971,
(36 FR 13804) relating to notices of
proposed rulemaking and public
participation in rulemaking. These
regulations are thus issued as final. In
addition, section 1601(c)(3) of the 2002
Act provides that the Secretary, in
carrying out the rulemaking exception,
shall utilize the authority in section 808
of title 5 of the U.S. Code. Accordingly,
under 5 U.S.C. 808, it is further found
that it would be contrary to the public
interest to delay implementation of this
rule for the special Congressional
review provisions provided for in 5
U.S.C. 802 et seq., to the extent, if any,
that they would otherwise apply.
Executive Order 12866
This rule has been determined to be
‘‘Not Significant’’ under Executive
Order 12866 and has not been reviewed
by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act does
not apply to this rule because CCC is not
required by 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other
law to publish a notice of proposed
rulemaking with respect to the subject
of this rule.
Environmental Assessment
The environmental impacts of this
rule have been considered consistent
with the provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., the
regulations of the Council on
Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts
1500–1508), and FSA’s regulations for
compliance with NEPA, 7 CFR part 799.
To the extent these authorities may
apply, CCC has concluded that this rule
is categorically excluded from further
environmental review as evidenced by
the completion of an environmental
evaluation. No extraordinary
circumstances or other unforeseeable
factors exist which would require
preparation of an environmental
assessment or environmental impact
statement. A copy of the environmental
evaluation is available for inspection
and review upon request.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Executive Order 12988
The rule has been reviewed in
accordance with Executive Order 12988.
This rule preempts State laws to the
extent such laws are inconsistent with
it. This rule is not retroactive. Before
judicial action may be brought
concerning this rule, all administrative
remedies set forth at 7 CFR parts 11 and
780 must be exhausted.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:15 Jul 27, 2006
Jkt 208001
§ 1425.18
Executive Order 12372
This program is not subject to
Executive Order 12372, which requires
intergovernmental consultation with
State and local officials. See the notice
related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V,
published at 48 FR 29115 (June 24,
1983).
Unfunded Mandates
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) does not
apply to this rule because CCC is not
required by 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other
law to publish a notice of proposed
rulemaking for the subject of this rule.
Further, this rule contains no unfunded
mandates as defined in sections 202 and
205 of UMRA.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under 7 U.S.C. 7991(c)(2)(A) these
regulations may be promulgated and the
program administered without regard to
chapter 5 of title 44 of the United States
Code (the Paperwork Reduction Act).
Accordingly, these regulations and the
forms and other information collection
activities needed to administer the
provisions authorized by these
regulations are not subject to review by
the Office of Management and Budget
under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Government Paperwork Elimination
Act
CCC is committed to compliance with
the Government Paperwork Elimination
Act (GPEA) and the Freedom to E-File
Act, which require Government
agencies in general, and the FSA in
particular, to provide the public the
option of submitting information or
transacting business electronically to
the maximum extent possible. Most
forms used by CMA’s may be submitted
to CCC by electronic submission.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1425
Agricultural commodities,
Cooperatives, Cotton, Feed grains,
Oilseeds, Price support programs.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 7 CFR part 1425 is amended
as set forth below.
I
PART 1425—COOPERATIVE
MARKETING ASSOCIATIONS
1. The authority citation continues to
read as follows:
I
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1441 and 1421, 7
U.S.C. 7931–7939; and 15 U.S.C. 714b, 714c,
and 714j.
2. Amend § 1425.18 by revising
paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
I
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Distribution of proceeds.
(a)(1) If CCC makes loans or LDP’s for
any quantity in a loan pool, the related
proceeds shall be distributed or
otherwise made available to the
members account:
(i) Based on the quantity and quality
of the commodity delivered by each
member;
(ii) Less any authorized charges for
services performed or paid by the CMA
necessary to condition or otherwise
make the commodity eligible for loans
or LDP’s, according to the marketing
agreement provided for in § 1425.13;
(iii) Within 15 work days from the
date the CMA receives loan or LDP
proceeds from CCC, or held according to
the terms of a deferred payment
agreement if requested by the member.
*
*
*
*
*
Signed in Washington, DC, on July 17,
2006.
Teresa C. Lasseter,
Executive Vice President, Commodity Credit
Corporation.
[FR Doc. E6–12068 Filed 7–27–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–05–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
18 CFR Part 366
[Docket No. RM05–32–002, Order No. 667–
B]
Repeal of the Public Utility Holding
Company Act of 1935 and Enactment
of the Public Utility Holding Company
Act of 2005
Issued July 20, 2006.
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, DoE.
ACTION: Final Order; Order on
Rehearing.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: By this order, the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) grants clarification and
rehearing in part of Order No. 667–A.
Order No. 667–A granted rehearing in
part and denied rehearing in part of
Order No. 667, which amended the
Commission’s regulations to implement
repeal of the Public Utility Holding
Company Act of 1935 and enactment of
the Public Utility Holding Company Act
of 2005.
DATES: Effective Date: This order is
effective on August 28, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lawrence Greenfield (Legal
Information), Federal Energy
E:\FR\FM\28JYR1.SGM
28JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 145 / Friday, July 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,
(202) 502–6415.
Andrew Lyon (Legal Information),
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. (202) 502–
6614.
Laura Wilson (Legal Information),
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. (202) 502–
6128.
James Guest (Technical Information),
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. (202) 502–
6614.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Before Commissioners: Joseph T. Kelliher,
Chairman; Nora Mead Brownell, and
Suedeen G. Kelly.
Order on Rehearing
1. Subtitle F of Title XII of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005)
repealed the Public Utility Holding
Company Act of 1935 (PUHCA 1935)
and enacted the Public Utility Holding
Company Act of 2005 (PUHCA 2005).1
In Order No. 667, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (Commission)
amended Subchapter U of its
regulations to implement Subtitle F.2 In
Order No. 667–A, the Commission
denied rehearing in part and granted
rehearing in part of Order No. 667.3 In
the present order, we grant clarification
and rehearing in part of Order No. 667–
A and amend our regulations
accordingly.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Introduction
2. On rehearing of Order No. 667–A,
commenters 4 raise five issues. First,
National Grid, EEI, Duke, and
Consumers seek clarification and/or
rehearing of changes in the regulatory
text that could be construed to place
1 Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109–58, 119
Stat. 594 (2005).
2 Repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company
Act of 1935 and Enactment of the Public Utility
Holding Company Act of 2005, Order No. 667, 70
FR 75592 (Dec. 20, 2005), FERC Stats. & Regs.
¶ 31,197 (2005).
3 Repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company
Act of 1935 and Enactment of the Public Utility
Holding Company Act of 2005, Order No. 667–A,
71 FR 28446 (May 16, 2006), FERC Stats. & Regs.
¶ 31,213 (2006).
4 Commenters in this second rehearing phase
include: AES Corporation (AES); ALCOA Inc.
(ALCOA); Consumers Energy Company and CMS
Energy Corporation (Consumers); Duke Energy
Corporation (Duke); Edison Electric Institute (EEI);
Edison International (Edison); Interstate Natural Gas
Association of America (INGAA); Invenergy
Investment Company LLC and Mayflower
Management Services LLC (Invenergy); National
Grid USA (National Grid); PPL Corporation (PPL);
and Sempra Energy (Sempra).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:15 Jul 27, 2006
Jkt 208001
conditions on the effectiveness of status
as an exempt wholesale generator
(EWG) or foreign utility company
(FUCO). Under the Commission’s
PUHCA 2005 regulations, a person that
is a holding company solely with
respect to an EWG or FUCO is eligible
for exemption from books-and-records,
accounting, record retention and
reporting requirements.5 In Order No.
667–A, the Commission modified the
regulatory text governing procedures for
obtaining EWG status to state that selfcertification (or a Commission
determination) would not become
effective until the relevant state
commissions had made certain
determinations under section 32(c) of
PUHCA 1935 in those cases where such
determinations were necessary under
section 32(c) of PUHCA 1935. Similar
language was included with respect to
FUCO self-certifications (and
Commission determinations); i.e., that
such status would not become effective
until the relevant state commissions had
provided certain certifications under
section 33(a)(2) of PUHCA 1935.
National Grid, EEI, Duke, and
Consumers suggest that the Commission
cannot and should not require those
determinations and certifications, and
they seek clarification or rehearing. As
discussed below, we reaffirm that EWGs
are subject to section 32(c) of PUHCA
1935.6 However, we clarify that we did
not intend that an entity that meets the
definition of a FUCO would not have
FUCO status until a state commission
certification is also provided.
Accordingly, we revise the regulatory
text that created this confusion.
3. Second, EEI, Sempra, Edison, PPL,
and AES ask for clarification or
rehearing of the Commission’s
definition of ‘‘single-state holding
company system.’’ Under the
Commission’s PUHCA 2005 regulations,
a single-state holding company system
is eligible for waiver of accounting,
record retention and reporting
requirements.7 In Order No. 667–A, for
purposes of such waiver, the
Commission defined ‘‘single-state
holding company system’’ as a system
that derives no more than thirteen
percent of its ‘‘public-utility company’’
revenues from outside of a state. The
Commission also defined ‘‘public-utility
CFR 366.7(a).
6 We note that, in practice, section 32(c) of
PUHCA only applies to EWGs whose generation
facilities’ costs were included in state-regulated
rates and rate base as of the date of enactment of
the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (October 24, 1992).
Where it does not apply and therefore where State
commission determinations are not necessary, an
EWG need merely inform us of that fact.
7 18 CFR 366.3(c)(1).
PO 00000
5 18
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
42751
company’’ and ‘‘electric utility
company’’ to include EWGs, FUCOs,
and qualifying facilities (QFs).8 As a
result, interests in out-of-state EWGs,
FUCOs or QFs might make a system
ineligible for waiver. EEI, Sempra,
Edison, PPL, and AES suggest that this
result is unnecessary and would
discourage investment. We grant
clarification as discussed below, and
modify the regulatory text to reflect this
clarification.
4. Third, ALCOA expresses concern
as to the requirement in Order No. 667–
A that, when a subsidiary owns
jurisdictional transmission facilities, the
parent company must apply for
exemption from the Commission’s
PUHCA 2005 regulations rather than
being eligible for exemption upon the
provision of notice. ALCOA suggests
that, if the subsidiary is not primarily
engaged in the provision of transmission
service, the parent company should be
eligible for exemption upon provision of
notice. We deny rehearing as discussed
below.
5. Fourth, INGAA requests
clarification of the Commission’s
definition of ‘‘gas utility company.’’
Under Order No. 667–A, a natural gas
pipeline company that makes only
incidental retail sales is a ‘‘gas utility
company.’’ An upstream owner of the
pipeline company is therefore subject to
regulation under the Commission’s
PUHCA 2005 regulations. It asserts that
this result imposes unnecessary burdens
and should be avoided through
adoption of a de minimis standard for
retail sales. We grant clarification and
revise the relevant regulatory text to add
an additional exemption to address this
circumstance as discussed below.
6. Finally, we clarify (1) in response
to a concern raised by EEI and Duke, a
subsidiary holding company may be
eligible for an exemption or waiver even
if an upstream holding company is not;
and (2) in response to a concern raised
by Invenergy, service companies within
an exempt holding company system are
themselves exempt from the
requirements of sections 366.2, 366.22,
and 366.23.
Discussion
1. EWG and FUCO Status
Background
7. PUHCA 2005 requires the
Commission to exempt from its booksand-records requirements companies
that are holding companies solely with
respect to an ‘‘exempt wholesale
generator’’ or ‘‘foreign utility
8 See
E:\FR\FM\28JYR1.SGM
18 CFR 366.1.
28JYR1
42752
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 145 / Friday, July 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
company.’’ 9 PUHCA 2005 gives the
term ‘‘exempt wholesale generator’’ the
same meaning as in section 32 of
PUHCA 1935 and gives the term
‘‘foreign utility company’’ the same
meaning as in section 33 of PUHCA
1935.10
8. In the regulations implementing
PUHCA 2005, the Commission restated
the definition of EWG in section 32(a)(1)
of PUHCA 1935. Under that definition,
an EWG is a person that owns or
operates an ‘‘eligible facility,’’ which is
a facility that, with minor exception, is
dedicated to wholesale sales.11
9. The Commission also incorporated
into the definition of EWG the
requirement for state commission
determinations in section 32(c) of
PUHCA 1935.12 Section 32(c) applies to
generation facilities whose costs were
included in state-regulated rates and
rate base as of the date of enactment of
the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (October
24, 1992).13 Under section 32(c), for
such a facility to be considered an
‘‘eligible facility,’’ the relevant state
commission must determine that
dedication of the facility to wholesale
sales will benefit consumers, will be in
the public interest and will not violate
state law.14 Because, by definition, an
EWG can only own or operate eligible
facilities, a person seeking EWG status
whose generation facilities’ costs were
included in state-regulated rates and
rate base as of the date of enactment of
the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (October
24, 1992) would not qualify as an EWG
until the relevant state commission
issues the specified determinations.15
10. In implementing PUHCA 2005,
the Commission adopted the definition
of ‘‘foreign utility company’’ in section
33(a)(3) of PUHCA 1935.16 Under this
definition, a FUCO is a company that
owns or operates electricity or natural or
manufactured gas facilities that are not
9 EPAct
2005 1266. See also EPAct 2005 1264.
2005 1262(6).
11 18 CFR 366.1; 15 U.S.C. 79z–5(a)(1) and (2).
12 18 CFR 366.1, definition of ‘‘exempt wholesale
generator’’ (1). See also 18 CFR 366.1, definition of
‘‘exempt wholesale generator’’ (2); 18 CFR 366.7
(conditioning EWG status on State determinations
under section 32(c) of PUHCA 1935).
13 Pub. L. 102–486, 106 Stat. 2776 (1992). To the
extent that the facilities that are at issue are not
encompassed within section 32(c) of PUHCA 1935,
e.g., the facilities are new facilities, then section
32(c) would not apply and the state commission
determinations provided for in section 32(c) would
not be necessary. The regulations state that, in such
circumstances, the EWG need simply inform the
Commission of that fact.
14 15 U.S.C. 79z–5a(a)(2) and (c).
15 As noted supra note 13, to the extent that
section 32(c) of PUHCA 1935 does not apply in a
particular instance, the person seeking EWG status
need simply inform the Commission of that fact.
16 18 CFR 366.1, definition of ‘‘foreign utility
company.’’ See also 15 U.S.C. 79z–5b(a)(3)(B).
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
10 EPAct
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:15 Jul 27, 2006
Jkt 208001
located in the United States, that does
not derive income from the generation,
transmission or distribution of
electricity or the distribution at retail of
natural or manufactured gas in the
United States, and that is not and has no
subsidiary that is a public-utility
company operating in the United States.
11. In modifications to the regulatory
text adopted on rehearing, the
Commission included in the definition
of ‘‘foreign utility company’’ a provision
that exempts FUCOs from all sections
but section 366.7 of the Commission’s
PUHCA 2005 regulations; 17 section
366.7 provides that FUCO status does
not become effective until the FUCO has
obtained state commission certification
consistent with section 33(a)(2) of
PUHCA 1935.18 Section 33(a)(2) of
PUHCA 1935, in turn, required state
certification as a condition on
exemption of a FUCO’s parent company
from public utility holding company
regulation under PUHCA 1935. For the
exemption to be effective, each state
commission with jurisdiction over
associated retail electricity and natural
gas suppliers needed to certify that the
state commission could adequately
protect retail ratepayers.19
Comments
12. National Grid, EEI, Duke, and
Consumers seek clarification and/or
rehearing of the requirements for state
commission determinations and
certifications. They assert that the
requirements violate PUHCA 2005 by
incorporating operative provisions of
PUHCA 1935. They add that state
involvement is unnecessary because the
Commission may prevent crosssubsidization between EWGs and
FUCOs and retail suppliers. Finally,
they assert that, if the Commission
conditions FUCO status on state
commission certification, it will prevent
companies from representing that they
have FUCO status until state
commission certification has been
obtained, and also will be inconsistent
with such companies’ ability to rely on
FUCO status under PUHCA 1935.
According to these commenters, the
associated uncertainty and delay will
put companies with United States
affiliates at a disadvantage in bidding
for foreign utility companies.
Decision
13. We will deny rehearing with
respect to EWGs, but grant relief with
respect to FUCOs.
PO 00000
17 Id.
18 18
CFR 366.7.
15 U.S.C. 79z–5b(a)(1) and (2).
19 See
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
14. For some entities, EWG status
does not take effect until state
commission determinations have been
obtained consistent with section 32(c) of
PUHCA 1935.20 PUHCA 2005 gives the
term ‘‘exempt wholesale generator’’ the
same meaning as in section 32 of
PUHCA 1935.21 Section 32(a)(1) of
PUHCA 1935 defines ‘‘exempt
wholesale generator’’ as a person that
owns or operates an ‘‘eligible facility.’’
Section 32(c) of PUHCA 1935 states that
certain facilities, i.e., those whose costs
were included in state-regulated rates
and rate base as of the date of enactment
of the Energy Policy Act of 1992
(October 24, 1992), are not eligible
facilities until specified state
commission determinations are
obtained.22 Thus, because, by
definition, an EWG can only own or
operate eligible facilities, and certain
facilities can only be eligible facilities
with state commission determinations, a
person cannot be an EWG if it owns or
operates such facilities (i.e., if it owns or
operates generation facilities whose
costs were included in state-regulated
rates and rate base as of the date of
enactment of the Energy Policy Act of
1992 (October 24, 1992)) without having
obtained the necessary State
commission determinations.
15. With respect to FUCOs, we clarify
that the Commission did not intend to
establish a requirement that an entity
cannot meet the definition of a FUCO
without first obtaining state commission
certification. In contrast to the statutory
definition of EWG in section 32 of
PUHCA 1935, the statutory definition of
FUCO in section 33 of PUHCA 1935 is
not tied to state commission
certification, and PUHCA 2005 gives the
term ‘‘foreign utility company’’ the same
meaning as in section 33 of PUHCA
1935. Under section 33 of PUHCA 1935,
state commission certification affected
only the availability of an exemption
from public utility holding company
regulation under PUHCA 1935, but was
not part of the definition of ‘‘foreign
utility company.’’ 23 As a result, state
commission certification is not required
by PUHCA 2005 as a condition of FUCO
status, and we will eliminate the
reference to such state commission
certification in the regulatory text.
16. Consistent with the foregoing, we
also will move paragraph (2) of the
definitions of EWG and FUCO to a new
section 366.7(e).
20 As noted supra note 13, to the extent that
section 32(c) of PUHCA 1935 does not apply in a
particular instance, the person seeking EWG status
need simply inform the Commission of that fact.
21 EPAct 2005 1262.
22 See 15 U.S.C. 79z–5a(a)(1) and (c).
23 See 15 U.S.C. 79z–5b(a).
E:\FR\FM\28JYR1.SGM
28JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 145 / Friday, July 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
2. Single-State Holding Companies
Background
17. In implementing PUHCA 2005,
the Commission provided for waiver of
accounting, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for single state holding
company systems.24 The waiver reflects
the principle that, when a system
operates substantially within a single
state, ratepayers are adequately
protected by state oversight as well as
by federal oversight under the Federal
Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824 et seq.
18. In Order No. 667–A, the
Commission defined ‘‘single-state
holding company system’’ with
reference to revenues from in-state
versus out-of-state activities. For
purposes of waiver from the
Commission’s accounting, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, the
Commission defined a single-state
holding company system as a system
that derives no more than thirteen
percent of its ‘‘public-utility company
revenues’’ from outside of a single
state.25 The Commission also defined
‘‘public-utility company’’ and ‘‘electric
utility company’’ to include EWGs,
FUCOs and QFs.26 As a result, a system
whose traditional utility operations are
largely confined to a single state might
be subject to federal accounting, recordkeeping and reporting requirements as a
result of owning out-of-state EWGs,
FUCOs or QFs.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Comments
19. EEI, Sempra, Edison, PPL, and
AES suggest that ownership of out-ofstate EWGs, FUCOs or QFs should not
affect a system’s eligibility for waiver of
federal accounting, recordkeeping and
reporting requirements. They state that
ownership of out-of-state EWGs, FUCOs
and QFs did not affect a system’s
eligibility for the single-state exemption
from public utility holding company
regulation under PUHCA 1935. They
suggest that considering ownership of
out-of-state EWGs, FUCOs and QFs now
would subject holding company systems
to new obligations and would therefore
contradict Congress’s goal in PUHCA
2005 of removing regulatory obstacles to
investment.
Decision
20. The Commission’s intent in
adopting the 13 percent of revenues
standard to identify who is a single state
holding company system entitled to a
waiver was to use the same 13 percent
standard applied by the SEC under
24 18
CFR 366.3(c).
CFR 366.3(c)(1).
26 18 CFR 366.1.
25 18
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:15 Jul 27, 2006
Jkt 208001
PUHCA 1935. Although we have
defined ‘‘public-utility company’’ and
‘‘electric utility company’’ to include
EWGs, FUCOs, and QFs, we clarify that
we did not intend to include such
entities’ revenues for purposes of
applying the 13 percent of revenues
standard to identify who is a single state
holding company system entitled to
waiver. We will revise the relevant
regulatory text in 18 CFR 366.3(c)(1)
accordingly.
21. This approach is similar to the
section 3(a) exemption under PUHCA
1935, which exempted single-state
holding company systems from plenary
federal oversight of the system’s
corporate and financial structure.27 The
section 3(a) exemption of PUHCA 1935
reflected Congress’s assessment that the
states and the federal government,
through corporate and rate regulation,
could otherwise effectively oversee a
single-state system without the
necessity of public utility holding
company regulation. Existing state and
federal regulation should continue to be
sufficient to protect against any abuses
associated with ownership of out-ofstate EWGs, FUCOs and QFs.
22. Accordingly, we will amend our
regulations to provide that, for purposes
of waiver under section 366.3(c)(1),
revenues derived from EWGs, FUCOs
and QFs will not be considered to be
‘‘public-utility company’’ revenues and
therefore will not affect the availability
of waiver of federal accounting and
related requirements.28
3. Companies That Are Not Primarily
Engaged in Transmission
Background
23. In Order No. 667–A, the
Commission exempted from its PUHCA
2005 regulations persons that are
holding companies with respect to
Commission-jurisdictional utilities
when (1) neither the utility nor an
affiliate has captive customers and (2)
neither the utility nor an affiliate owns
Commission-jurisdictional transmission
U.S.C. 79c(a).
28 In the separate context of the statutory
exemption of PUHCA 2005 section 1275(d), as
reflected in 18 CFR 366.5, involving cost allocation
for non-power goods and services in the case of a
holding company system whose public utility
operations are confined substantially to a single
state, EEI asks that the Commission not require that
a holding company file a petition for declaratory
order in order to obtain a Commission
determination that the holding company’s public
utility operations are confined substantially to a
single state. EEI Rehearing Request at 4, 12–13. As
a Commission determination that a holding
company’s public utility operations are confined
substantially to a single state would be a declaratory
order, the appropriate vehicle to seek such a
determination would be a petition for a declaratory
order.
PO 00000
27 15
Frm 00005
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
42753
facilities or provides Commissionjurisdictional transmission services.29
Comments
24. ALCOA suggests that the
Commission should exempt, under 18
CFR 366.3(b)(2) and 366.4(b)(1), i.e., by
way of FERC–65A, companies whose
subsidiaries have no captive customers
and are not primarily engaged in
transmission in interstate commerce,
regardless of whether a subsidiary owns
transmission facilities. According to
ALCOA, the Commission’s regulations
as they stand require companies such as
ALCOA to instead apply for exemption,
under 18 CFR 366.3(d) and 366.4(b)(3),
when a subsidiary owns discrete
transmission facilities and acquired
those facilities by what it characterizes
as historical coincidence. ALCOA
suggests that there is no regulatory
interest in oversight of the parent
company in those circumstances and
that, therefore, the parent company
should not be required to apply for
exemption.
25. ALCOA also suggests that the
Commission must make the exemption
process provided in 18 CFR 366.3(b)(2)
and 366.4(b)(1), i.e., by way of FERC–
65A, available to companies such as
ALCOA because (1) those companies
were exempted from public utility
holding company regulation under
PUHCA 1935, (2) the Commission’s
notice of proposed rulemaking in this
proceeding suggested that the
Commission did not intend to impose
burdens beyond those in PUHCA 1935,
and (3) the Commission did not make
the parent company of a transmission
owner ineligible for the notification
process until rehearing of the
Commission’s initial order in this
proceeding. According to ALCOA, to
now require ALCOA to apply for
exemption would violate notice
requirements of the Administrative
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551–59, and
ALCOA’s constitutional right to the
equal protection of the laws.
Decision
26. At issue is not whether ALCOA
and similar companies are eligible for
exemption from the Commission’s
PUHCA 2005 regulations but whether
those companies must individually and
formally apply for exemption under 18
CFR 366.3(d) and 366.4(b)(3), rather
than submitting an exemption
notification, i.e., a FERC–65A, under 18
CFR 366.4(b)(1). Contrary to ALCOA’s
suggestion, at this early stage in our
implementation of PUHCA 2005, there
is a strong regulatory interest in
29 See
E:\FR\FM\28JYR1.SGM
18 CFR 366.3(b)(2)(ii).
28JYR1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
42754
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 145 / Friday, July 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
requiring holding companies that do not
qualify for the exemptions or waivers
identified in 18 CFR 366.3(b)(2) and
366.3(c) to apply formally for
exemption. As relevant here, that would
include, where no other exemption or
waiver applies, where the company or a
subsidiary owns jurisdictional
transmission facilities or provides
jurisdictional transmission service. We
do not mean to suggest that on the facts
and circumstances of a particular case
an exemption or waiver might not be
appropriate. Rather, at this point in
time, the formal application process
gives the Commission the opportunity
to make such determinations on the
facts and circumstances of each case.
For example, the process gives the
Commission the opportunity to
determine whether there might be
significant potential for transmission
service customers to subsidize
wholesale sales and, if so, whether the
cross-subsidies could be adequately
addressed through rate regulation.
Based on that analysis, the Commission
would or would not, as the facts and
circumstances dictate, permit
exemption from oversight under the
Commission’s PUHCA 2005
regulations.30
27. Moreover, the requirement does
not impose undue regulatory burdens.
In its request for rehearing, ALCOA cites
cases in which the SEC determined that
ALCOA was exempt from holding
company regulation under PUHCA
1935. In light of the SEC’s past, active
involvement in determining eligibility
for exemption under PUHCA 1935, our
requirement that companies formally
apply to us for exemption under the
Commission’s PUHCA 2005 regulations
(rather than obtaining exemption by
filing a FERC–65A) is unexceptional. It
is true that companies like ALCOA must
apply anew for exemption rather than
relying on prior SEC determinations.
That obligation flows directly from
Congress’s decision to change the
governing law and is not an
unreasonable cost of doing business.
28. Finally, the Administrative
Procedure Act does not require us to
issue a new notice of proposed
rulemaking every time that we make a
change to a proposed rule. The express
purpose of the comment, decision, and
rehearing process is to allow the
Commission to make changes to a
proposed rule. As evidenced by
ALCOA’s request for rehearing,
moreover, ALCOA had actual and
timely notice and opportunity to
30 In fact, ALCOA has made a formal filing, in
Docket No. EL06–75–000, seeking an exemption.
That filing is presently pending.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:15 Jul 27, 2006
Jkt 208001
address provisions and changes that
affected ALCOA.
4. Pipeline Companies That Make
Incidental Retail Gas Sales
Background
29. Pursuant to PUHCA 1935, and
specifically section 2(a)(4) of PUHCA
1935, a natural gas pipeline that was not
‘‘primarily engaged’’ in the sale of
natural gas at retail was not considered
to be a ‘‘gas utility company.’’ 31 As a
result, under PUHCA 1935, a holding
company with interests in that pipeline
would not, by virtue of those interests,
be subject to public utility holding
company regulation.32
30. PUHCA 2005 defines ‘‘gas utility
company’’ without regard to whether a
company is primarily engaged in the
retail sale of natural gas.33 In
implementing PUHCA 2005, the
Commission adopted the statutory
definition of ‘‘gas utility company,’’
with the added clarification that an
entity that is engaged only in the
marketing of natural gas is not a ‘‘gas
utility company’’:
The term ‘‘gas utility company’’ means any
company that owns or operates facilities used
for distribution at retail (other than the
distribution only in enclosed portable
containers or distribution to tenants or
employees of the company operating such
facilities for their own use and not for resale)
of natural or manufactured gas for heat, light,
or power. For the purposes of this
subchapter, ‘‘gas utility company’’ shall not
include entities that engage only in
marketing of natural and manufactured gas.34
Under that definition, a pipeline that
makes incidental retail sales of natural
gas could be interpreted to be a ‘‘gas
utility company,’’ such that a parent of
the pipeline would be subject to the
Commission’s PUHCA 2005
regulations.35
Comments
31. INGAA seeks clarification of the
Commission’s interpretation of ‘‘gas
utility company’’ and asks us to find
that a company that ‘‘owns an interstate
natural gas pipeline company, which
pipeline makes deliveries to industrial
customers and power plants and/or de
minimis deliveries to farmers and/or
ranchers located adjacent to the
pipeline’s rights-of-way is not, due to
U.S.C. 79b(a)(4).
U.S.C. 79b(a)(7); see also 17 CFR 250.7(a) (a
pipeline company was not ‘‘primarily engaged’’ in
the sale of natural gas at retail if gross revenues
from retail sales were less than an average, annual
amount of $5,000,000 over the preceding three
calendar years).
33 EPAct 2005 1262(7).
34 18 CFR 366.1.
35 EPAct 2005 1262(8) and (13); 18 CFR 366.1.
PO 00000
31 15
32 15
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
such ownership, a ‘holding company’
under the Commission’s PUHCA [2005]
regulations.’’ INGAA relies primarily on
section 2(a)(4) of PUHCA 1935, which
allowed the SEC to except from the
definition of ‘‘gas utility company’’
companies that were not ‘‘primarily
engaged in’’ retail sales of natural gas.
According to INGAA, section 2(a)(4) of
PUHCA 1935 demonstrated
Congressional intent not to impose
holding company regulation in the
context of pipeline companies that make
incidental retail sales. INGAA suggests
there is no need to change that
longstanding practice under PUHCA
1935 and, in particular, to impose
regulatory obligations under PUHCA
2005 where none existed under PUHCA
1935. It also points out that under
PUHCA 1935 the SEC promulgated a
regulation exempting entities from the
definition of ‘‘gas utility company’’ if
their revenues from retail distribution of
natural gas were de minimis and that
the most recent monetary limit was an
average annual amount of $5 million
over the preceding three calendar years.
Decision
32. A holding company is defined in
PUHCA 2005 and in the Commission’s
PUHCA 2005 regulations based on its
ownership of a public-utility company.
A public-utility company, in turn,
includes a gas utility company, but does
not include a natural gas company. So,
for a public-utility company that is a gas
utility company, its parent may fall
within the definition of a holding
company. In contrast, for a public-utility
company that is a natural gas company
and not a gas utility company, its parent
would not fall within the definition of
a holding company. INGAA’s concern is
that some pipelines may make
incidental sales of natural gas at retail.
That fact would result in their also
being considered gas utility companies
rather than solely natural gas
companies—thus resulting in regulation
of their parent companies as holding
companies.
33. The relevant language in PUHCA
2005 at issue here defining ‘‘gas utility
company’’ and when exemptions would
be warranted under PUHCA 2005 is not
identical to the corresponding language
in PUHCA 1935 highlighted by INGAA
above defining ‘‘gas utility company’’
and when exemptions were warranted
under PUHCA 1935. That fact
notwithstanding, we agree with INGAA
and believe that the fact that a pipeline
makes sales of natural gas to end-use
customers located adjacent to the
pipeline’s right of way should not, on
that basis alone, lead to the pipeline’s
parent being considered a holding
E:\FR\FM\28JYR1.SGM
28JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 145 / Friday, July 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
company under PUHCA 2005.36 We will
revise the regulatory text accordingly to
add an additional exemption to address
such circumstances.
5. Additional Clarifications
34. We hereby grant two clarifications
to Order No. 667–A. The first
clarification relates to the following
statement in the narrative preamble of
Order No. 667–A:
Where the parent holding company
qualifies for an exemption or waiver, the
subsidiary holding company would
necessarily equally qualify; phrased
differently, if the subsidiary did not qualify
for a particular exemption or waiver, then the
parent would not qualify for that same
exemption or waiver either.37
EEI and Duke urge us to delete the
latter portion of the quoted sentence
that begins with ‘‘phrased differently’’
on the grounds that it creates
unnecessary confusion. Upon further
review, the first portion of the abovequoted sentence is sufficiently clear on
its own. We therefore void the latter,
‘‘phrased differently’’ portion of the
sentence.
The second clarification relates to
section 366.3(a) of our regulations,
which states that holding companies
that meet the requirements of that
section are exempt from specified
provisions of the Commission’s PUHCA
2005 regulations:
Any person that is a holding company
solely with respect to one or more of the
following will be exempt from the
requirements of § 366.2 and the accounting,
record-retention, and reporting requirements
of §§ 366.21, 366.22, and 366.23 * * * .38
35. The specified provisions include
two provisions—sections 366.22 and
366.23—that apply to service
companies. Invenergy requests
clarification that, if a holding company
is exempt as provided in section
366.3(a), service companies within the
holding company system are exempt
from sections 366.22 and 366.23. We
agree with the requested clarification
and will change section 366.3(a)
accordingly.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Information Collection Statement
36. The regulations of the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) 39
require that OMB approve information36 As we previously noted in both Order No. 667
and Order No. 667–A, we again note that we have
independent authority under the Natural Gas Act to
obtain the books and records of regulated
companies and any person that controls such
companies if relevant to jurisdictional activities. 15
U.S.C. 717g.
37 Order No. 667–A at P 20, n.41.
38 18 CFR 366.3(a).
39 5 CFR 1320.12.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:15 Jul 27, 2006
Jkt 208001
collection burdens that are imposed by
an agency. OMB has approved the
information-collection burdens that
were imposed in Order Nos. 667 and
667–A.40 The present order clarifies
those orders. Accordingly, OMB
approval for this order is not necessary.
The Commission will send a copy of
this order to OMB for informational
purposes.
37. Interested persons may obtain
information on the information
requirements by contacting the
following: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426 [Attention:
Michael Miller, Office of the Executive
Director, ED–34], Phone: (202) 502–
8415, Fax: (202) 273–0873, e-mail:
michael.miller@ferc.gov.
The Commission Orders
Rehearing and clarification is hereby
granted in part and denied in part as
discussed in the body of this order.
By the Commission.
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 366
Electric power, Natural gas, Public
utility holding companies and service
companies, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
I In consideration of the foregoing,
under the authority of PUHCA 2005, the
Commission is amending Part 366 in
Chapter I of Title 18 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
Subchapter U—Regulations Under the
Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005
PART 366—PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING
COMPANY ACT OF 2005
Subpart A—PUHCA 2005 Definitions
and Provisions
1. The authority citation for part 366
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: Pub. L. 109–58, 1261 et seq.,
119 Stat. 594, 972 et seq.
2. Section 366.1 is amended by
revising the definitions of ‘‘exempt
wholesale generator’’ and ‘‘foreign
utility company’’ to read as follows:
I
Subpart A—PUHCA 2005 Definitions
and Provisions
§ 366.1
Definitions.
For purposes of this part:
*
*
*
*
*
Exempt wholesale generator. The term
‘‘exempt wholesale generator’’ means
any person engaged directly, or
PO 00000
40 See
OMB Control Nos. 1902–0166, 1902–0216.
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
42755
indirectly through one or more affiliates
as defined in this subchapter, and
exclusively in the business of owning or
operating, or both owning and
operating, all or part of one or more
eligible facilities and selling electric
energy at wholesale. For purposes of
establishing or determining whether an
entity qualifies for exempt wholesale
generator status, sections 32(a)(2)
through (4), and sections 32(b) through
(d) of the Public Utility Holding
Company Act of 1935 (15 U.S.C. 79z–
5a(a)(2)–(4), 79z–5a(b)–(d)) shall apply.
Foreign utility company. The term
‘‘foreign utility company’’ means any
company that owns or operates facilities
that are not located in any state and that
are used for the generation,
transmission, or distribution of electric
energy for sale or the distribution at
retail of natural or manufactured gas for
heat, light, or power, if such company:
(1) Derives no part of its income,
directly or indirectly, from the
generation, transmission, or distribution
of electric energy for sale or the
distribution at retail of natural or
manufactured gas for heat, light, or
power, within the United States; and
(2) Neither the company nor any of its
subsidiary companies is a public-utility
company operating in the United States.
*
*
*
*
*
I 3. Section 366.3 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a) introductory
text, (b)(2) introductory text, (c)
introductory text, and (c)(1), and by
adding paragraph (b)(2)(vii) to read as
follows:
§ 366.3 Exemption from Commission
access to books and records; waivers of
accounting, record-retention, and reporting
requirements.
(a) Exempt classes of entities. Any
person that is a holding company solely
with respect to one or more of the
following will be exempt from the
requirements of §§ 366.2 and 366.21 and
any associated service company will be
exempt from the requirements of
§§ 366.2, 366.22, and 366.23; such
person need not make the filings
provided in § 366.4(a) or (b):
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) Commission exemption of
additional persons and classes of
transactions.
The Commission has determined that
the following persons and classes of
transactions satisfy the requirements of
paragraph (b)(1) of this section, and any
person that is a holding company solely
with respect to one or more of the
following may file to obtain an
exemption for that person or class of
transactions, as appropriate, from the
E:\FR\FM\28JYR1.SGM
28JYR1
42756
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 145 / Friday, July 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
requirements of §§ 366.2 and 366.21
(applicable to holding companies) and
§§ 366.2, 366.22, and 366.23 (applicable
to the holding companies’ associated
service companies), pursuant to the
notification procedure contained in
§ 366.4(b):
*
*
*
*
*
(vii) Natural gas companies that
distribute natural or manufactured gas
at retail to industrial or electric
generation customers and/or distribute
de minimis amounts of natural or
manufactured gas at retail to farmer or
rancher customers located adjacent to
the natural gas company’s rights-of-way.
(c) Waivers. Any person that is a
holding company solely with respect to
one or more of the following may file to
obtain a waiver of the accounting,
record-retention, and reporting
requirements of § 366.21 (applicable to
holding companies) and §§ 366.22 and
366.23 (applicable to the holding
companies’ associated service
companies), pursuant to the notification
procedures contained in § 366.4(c):
(1) Single-state holding company
systems; for purposes of § 366.3(c)(1), a
holding company system will be
deemed to be a single-state holding
company system if the holding company
system derives no more than 13 percent
of its public-utility company revenues
from outside a single state (for purposes
of this waiver, revenues derived from
exempt wholesale generators, foreign
utility companies and qualifying
facilities will not be considered publicutility company revenues);
*
*
*
*
*
I 4. In § 366.7, paragraphs (a) and (b) are
revised to read as follows, and
paragraph (e) is added to read as
follows:
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
§ 366.7 Procedures for obtaining exempt
wholesale generator and foreign utility
company status.
(a) Self-certification notice procedure.
An exempt wholesale generator or a
foreign utility company, or its
representative, may file with the
Commission a notice of self-certification
demonstrating that it satisfies the
definition of exempt wholesale
generator or foreign utility company
(including stating the location of its
generation); such notices of selfcertification must be subscribed,
consistent with § 385.2005(a) of this
chapter, but need not be verified. In the
case of exempt wholesale generators, the
person filing a notice of self-certification
under this section must also file a copy
of the notice of self-certification with
the state regulatory authority of the state
in which the facility is located, and that
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:15 Jul 27, 2006
Jkt 208001
person must also represent to this
Commission in its submittal with this
Commission that it has filed a copy of
the notice of self-certification with the
state regulatory authority of the state in
which the facility is located. Notice of
the filing of a notice of self-certification
will be published in the Federal
Register. Persons that file a notice of
self-certification must include a form of
notice suitable for publication in the
Federal Register in accordance with the
specifications in § 385.203(d) of this
chapter. A person filing a notice of selfcertification in good faith will be
deemed to have temporary exempt
wholesale generator or foreign utility
company status. If the Commission
takes no action within 60 days from the
date of filing of the notice of selfcertification, the self-certification shall
be deemed to have been granted;
however, consistent with section 32(c)
of the Public Utility Holding Company
Act of 1935 (15 U.S.C. 79z–5a (c)) any
self-certification of an exempt wholesale
generator may not become effective
until the relevant state commissions
have made the determinations provided
for therein if such determinations are
necessary (if such determinations are
not necessary, the notice of selfcertification should state so). The
Commission may toll the 60-day period
to request additional information, or for
further consideration of the request; in
such cases, the person’s exempt
wholesale generator or foreign utility
company status will remain temporary
until such time as the Commission has
determined whether to grant or deny
exempt wholesale generator or foreign
utility company status; however,
consistent with section 32(c) of the
Public Utility Holding Company Act of
1935 (15 U.S.C. 79z–5a (c)), any selfcertification of an exempt wholesale
generator may not become effective
until the relevant state commissions
have made the determinations provided
for therein if such determinations are
necessary (if such determinations are
not necessary, the notice of selfcertification should state so). Authority
to toll the 60-day period is delegated to
the Secretary or the Secretary’s
designee, and authority to act on
uncontested notices of self-certification
is delegated to the General Counsel or
the General Counsel’s designee.
(b) Optional procedure for
Commission determination of exempt
wholesale generator status or foreign
utility company status. A person may
file for a Commission determination of
exempt wholesale generator status or
foreign utility company status under
§ 366.1 by filing a petition for
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
declaratory order pursuant to
§ 385.207(a) of this chapter, justifying
the request for such status; however,
consistent with section 32(c) of the
Public Utility Holding Company Act of
1935 (15 U.S.C. 79z–5a (c)), a
Commission determination of exempt
wholesale generator status may not
become effective until the relevant state
commissions have made the
determinations provided for therein if
such determinations are necessary. (If
such determinations are not necessary,
the petition for declaratory order should
state so.) Persons that file petitions must
include a form of notice suitable for
publication in the Federal Register in
accordance with the specifications in
§ 385.203(d) of this chapter.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) An exempt wholesale generator
shall not be subject to any requirements
of this part other than § 366.7, i.e.,
procedures for obtaining exempt
wholesale generator status. A foreign
utility company shall not be subject to
any requirements of this part other than
§ 366.7, i.e., procedures for obtaining
foreign utility company status.
[FR Doc. E6–12048 Filed 7–27–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
[DOD–2006–OS–0077; 0790–AG31]
32 CFR Part 202
Department of Defense Restoration
Advisory Boards
Department of Defense.
Final rule; correction.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Department of Defense
(DoD) published a final rule document
on May 12, 2006 promulgating the
Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) rule
regarding the scope, characteristics,
composition, funding, establishment,
operation, adjournment, and dissolution
of RABs. That rule implemented the
requirement established in 10 U.S.C.
2705(d)(2)(A), which requires the
Secretary of Defense to prescribe
regulations regarding RABs. That rule
was based on DoD’s current policies for
establishing and operating RABs, as
well as the Department’s experience
over the past ten years. This document
makes administrative corrections to the
preamble of that document.
DATES: This rule is effective July 28,
2006.
Ms.
Patricia Ferrebee, Office of the Deputy
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
E:\FR\FM\28JYR1.SGM
28JYR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 145 (Friday, July 28, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42750-42756]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-12048]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
18 CFR Part 366
[Docket No. RM05-32-002, Order No. 667-B]
Repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 and
Enactment of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005
Issued July 20, 2006.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DoE.
ACTION: Final Order; Order on Rehearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: By this order, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) grants clarification and rehearing in part of Order No.
667-A. Order No. 667-A granted rehearing in part and denied rehearing
in part of Order No. 667, which amended the Commission's regulations to
implement repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 and
enactment of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005.
DATES: Effective Date: This order is effective on August 28, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lawrence Greenfield (Legal Information), Federal Energy
[[Page 42751]]
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,
(202) 502-6415.
Andrew Lyon (Legal Information), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. (202) 502-6614.
Laura Wilson (Legal Information), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. (202) 502-6128.
James Guest (Technical Information), Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. (202) 502-
6614.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Before Commissioners: Joseph T. Kelliher, Chairman; Nora Mead
Brownell, and Suedeen G. Kelly.
Order on Rehearing
1. Subtitle F of Title XII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct
2005) repealed the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (PUHCA
1935) and enacted the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005 (PUHCA
2005).\1\ In Order No. 667, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) amended Subchapter U of its regulations to implement
Subtitle F.\2\ In Order No. 667-A, the Commission denied rehearing in
part and granted rehearing in part of Order No. 667.\3\ In the present
order, we grant clarification and rehearing in part of Order No. 667-A
and amend our regulations accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 594
(2005).
\2\ Repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 and
Enactment of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005, Order
No. 667, 70 FR 75592 (Dec. 20, 2005), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,197
(2005).
\3\ Repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 and
Enactment of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005, Order
No. 667-A, 71 FR 28446 (May 16, 2006), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,213
(2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
2. On rehearing of Order No. 667-A, commenters \4\ raise five
issues. First, National Grid, EEI, Duke, and Consumers seek
clarification and/or rehearing of changes in the regulatory text that
could be construed to place conditions on the effectiveness of status
as an exempt wholesale generator (EWG) or foreign utility company
(FUCO). Under the Commission's PUHCA 2005 regulations, a person that is
a holding company solely with respect to an EWG or FUCO is eligible for
exemption from books-and-records, accounting, record retention and
reporting requirements.\5\ In Order No. 667-A, the Commission modified
the regulatory text governing procedures for obtaining EWG status to
state that self-certification (or a Commission determination) would not
become effective until the relevant state commissions had made certain
determinations under section 32(c) of PUHCA 1935 in those cases where
such determinations were necessary under section 32(c) of PUHCA 1935.
Similar language was included with respect to FUCO self-certifications
(and Commission determinations); i.e., that such status would not
become effective until the relevant state commissions had provided
certain certifications under section 33(a)(2) of PUHCA 1935. National
Grid, EEI, Duke, and Consumers suggest that the Commission cannot and
should not require those determinations and certifications, and they
seek clarification or rehearing. As discussed below, we reaffirm that
EWGs are subject to section 32(c) of PUHCA 1935.\6 \However, we clarify
that we did not intend that an entity that meets the definition of a
FUCO would not have FUCO status until a state commission certification
is also provided. Accordingly, we revise the regulatory text that
created this confusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Commenters in this second rehearing phase include: AES
Corporation (AES); ALCOA Inc. (ALCOA); Consumers Energy Company and
CMS Energy Corporation (Consumers); Duke Energy Corporation (Duke);
Edison Electric Institute (EEI); Edison International (Edison);
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA); Invenergy
Investment Company LLC and Mayflower Management Services LLC
(Invenergy); National Grid USA (National Grid); PPL Corporation
(PPL); and Sempra Energy (Sempra).
\5\ 18 CFR 366.7(a).
\6\ We note that, in practice, section 32(c) of PUHCA only
applies to EWGs whose generation facilities' costs were included in
state-regulated rates and rate base as of the date of enactment of
the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (October 24, 1992). Where it does not
apply and therefore where State commission determinations are not
necessary, an EWG need merely inform us of that fact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Second, EEI, Sempra, Edison, PPL, and AES ask for clarification
or rehearing of the Commission's definition of ``single-state holding
company system.'' Under the Commission's PUHCA 2005 regulations, a
single-state holding company system is eligible for waiver of
accounting, record retention and reporting requirements.\7\ In Order
No. 667-A, for purposes of such waiver, the Commission defined
``single-state holding company system'' as a system that derives no
more than thirteen percent of its ``public-utility company'' revenues
from outside of a state. The Commission also defined ``public-utility
company'' and ``electric utility company'' to include EWGs, FUCOs, and
qualifying facilities (QFs).\8\ As a result, interests in out-of-state
EWGs, FUCOs or QFs might make a system ineligible for waiver. EEI,
Sempra, Edison, PPL, and AES suggest that this result is unnecessary
and would discourage investment. We grant clarification as discussed
below, and modify the regulatory text to reflect this clarification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 18 CFR 366.3(c)(1).
\8\ See 18 CFR 366.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Third, ALCOA expresses concern as to the requirement in Order
No. 667-A that, when a subsidiary owns jurisdictional transmission
facilities, the parent company must apply for exemption from the
Commission's PUHCA 2005 regulations rather than being eligible for
exemption upon the provision of notice. ALCOA suggests that, if the
subsidiary is not primarily engaged in the provision of transmission
service, the parent company should be eligible for exemption upon
provision of notice. We deny rehearing as discussed below.
5. Fourth, INGAA requests clarification of the Commission's
definition of ``gas utility company.'' Under Order No. 667-A, a natural
gas pipeline company that makes only incidental retail sales is a ``gas
utility company.'' An upstream owner of the pipeline company is
therefore subject to regulation under the Commission's PUHCA 2005
regulations. It asserts that this result imposes unnecessary burdens
and should be avoided through adoption of a de minimis standard for
retail sales. We grant clarification and revise the relevant regulatory
text to add an additional exemption to address this circumstance as
discussed below.
6. Finally, we clarify (1) in response to a concern raised by EEI
and Duke, a subsidiary holding company may be eligible for an exemption
or waiver even if an upstream holding company is not; and (2) in
response to a concern raised by Invenergy, service companies within an
exempt holding company system are themselves exempt from the
requirements of sections 366.2, 366.22, and 366.23.
Discussion
1. EWG and FUCO Status
Background
7. PUHCA 2005 requires the Commission to exempt from its books-and-
records requirements companies that are holding companies solely with
respect to an ``exempt wholesale generator'' or ``foreign utility
[[Page 42752]]
company.'' \9\ PUHCA 2005 gives the term ``exempt wholesale generator''
the same meaning as in section 32 of PUHCA 1935 and gives the term
``foreign utility company'' the same meaning as in section 33 of PUHCA
1935.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ EPAct 2005 1266. See also EPAct 2005 1264.
\10\ EPAct 2005 1262(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. In the regulations implementing PUHCA 2005, the Commission
restated the definition of EWG in section 32(a)(1) of PUHCA 1935. Under
that definition, an EWG is a person that owns or operates an ``eligible
facility,'' which is a facility that, with minor exception, is
dedicated to wholesale sales.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 18 CFR 366.1; 15 U.S.C. 79z-5(a)(1) and (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. The Commission also incorporated into the definition of EWG the
requirement for state commission determinations in section 32(c) of
PUHCA 1935.\12\ Section 32(c) applies to generation facilities whose
costs were included in state-regulated rates and rate base as of the
date of enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (October 24,
1992).\13\ Under section 32(c), for such a facility to be considered an
``eligible facility,'' the relevant state commission must determine
that dedication of the facility to wholesale sales will benefit
consumers, will be in the public interest and will not violate state
law.\14\ Because, by definition, an EWG can only own or operate
eligible facilities, a person seeking EWG status whose generation
facilities' costs were included in state-regulated rates and rate base
as of the date of enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (October
24, 1992) would not qualify as an EWG until the relevant state
commission issues the specified determinations.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 18 CFR 366.1, definition of ``exempt wholesale generator''
(1). See also 18 CFR 366.1, definition of ``exempt wholesale
generator'' (2); 18 CFR 366.7 (conditioning EWG status on State
determinations under section 32(c) of PUHCA 1935).
\13\ Pub. L. 102-486, 106 Stat. 2776 (1992). To the extent that
the facilities that are at issue are not encompassed within section
32(c) of PUHCA 1935, e.g., the facilities are new facilities, then
section 32(c) would not apply and the state commission
determinations provided for in section 32(c) would not be necessary.
The regulations state that, in such circumstances, the EWG need
simply inform the Commission of that fact.
\14\ 15 U.S.C. 79z-5a(a)(2) and (c).
\15\ As noted supra note 13, to the extent that section 32(c) of
PUHCA 1935 does not apply in a particular instance, the person
seeking EWG status need simply inform the Commission of that fact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. In implementing PUHCA 2005, the Commission adopted the
definition of ``foreign utility company'' in section 33(a)(3) of PUHCA
1935.\16\ Under this definition, a FUCO is a company that owns or
operates electricity or natural or manufactured gas facilities that are
not located in the United States, that does not derive income from the
generation, transmission or distribution of electricity or the
distribution at retail of natural or manufactured gas in the United
States, and that is not and has no subsidiary that is a public-utility
company operating in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 18 CFR 366.1, definition of ``foreign utility company.''
See also 15 U.S.C. 79z-5b(a)(3)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. In modifications to the regulatory text adopted on rehearing,
the Commission included in the definition of ``foreign utility
company'' a provision that exempts FUCOs from all sections but section
366.7 of the Commission's PUHCA 2005 regulations; \17\ section 366.7
provides that FUCO status does not become effective until the FUCO has
obtained state commission certification consistent with section
33(a)(2) of PUHCA 1935.\18\ Section 33(a)(2) of PUHCA 1935, in turn,
required state certification as a condition on exemption of a FUCO's
parent company from public utility holding company regulation under
PUHCA 1935. For the exemption to be effective, each state commission
with jurisdiction over associated retail electricity and natural gas
suppliers needed to certify that the state commission could adequately
protect retail ratepayers.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Id.
\18\ 18 CFR 366.7.
\19\ See 15 U.S.C. 79z-5b(a)(1) and (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
12. National Grid, EEI, Duke, and Consumers seek clarification and/
or rehearing of the requirements for state commission determinations
and certifications. They assert that the requirements violate PUHCA
2005 by incorporating operative provisions of PUHCA 1935. They add that
state involvement is unnecessary because the Commission may prevent
cross-subsidization between EWGs and FUCOs and retail suppliers.
Finally, they assert that, if the Commission conditions FUCO status on
state commission certification, it will prevent companies from
representing that they have FUCO status until state commission
certification has been obtained, and also will be inconsistent with
such companies' ability to rely on FUCO status under PUHCA 1935.
According to these commenters, the associated uncertainty and delay
will put companies with United States affiliates at a disadvantage in
bidding for foreign utility companies.
Decision
13. We will deny rehearing with respect to EWGs, but grant relief
with respect to FUCOs.
14. For some entities, EWG status does not take effect until state
commission determinations have been obtained consistent with section
32(c) of PUHCA 1935.\20\ PUHCA 2005 gives the term ``exempt wholesale
generator'' the same meaning as in section 32 of PUHCA 1935.\21\
Section 32(a)(1) of PUHCA 1935 defines ``exempt wholesale generator''
as a person that owns or operates an ``eligible facility.'' Section
32(c) of PUHCA 1935 states that certain facilities, i.e., those whose
costs were included in state-regulated rates and rate base as of the
date of enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (October 24, 1992),
are not eligible facilities until specified state commission
determinations are obtained.\22\ Thus, because, by definition, an EWG
can only own or operate eligible facilities, and certain facilities can
only be eligible facilities with state commission determinations, a
person cannot be an EWG if it owns or operates such facilities (i.e.,
if it owns or operates generation facilities whose costs were included
in state-regulated rates and rate base as of the date of enactment of
the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (October 24, 1992)) without having
obtained the necessary State commission determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ As noted supra note 13, to the extent that section 32(c) of
PUHCA 1935 does not apply in a particular instance, the person
seeking EWG status need simply inform the Commission of that fact.
\21\ EPAct 2005 1262.
\22\ See 15 U.S.C. 79z-5a(a)(1) and (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. With respect to FUCOs, we clarify that the Commission did not
intend to establish a requirement that an entity cannot meet the
definition of a FUCO without first obtaining state commission
certification. In contrast to the statutory definition of EWG in
section 32 of PUHCA 1935, the statutory definition of FUCO in section
33 of PUHCA 1935 is not tied to state commission certification, and
PUHCA 2005 gives the term ``foreign utility company'' the same meaning
as in section 33 of PUHCA 1935. Under section 33 of PUHCA 1935, state
commission certification affected only the availability of an exemption
from public utility holding company regulation under PUHCA 1935, but
was not part of the definition of ``foreign utility company.'' \23\ As
a result, state commission certification is not required by PUHCA 2005
as a condition of FUCO status, and we will eliminate the reference to
such state commission certification in the regulatory text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See 15 U.S.C. 79z-5b(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Consistent with the foregoing, we also will move paragraph (2)
of the definitions of EWG and FUCO to a new section 366.7(e).
[[Page 42753]]
2. Single-State Holding Companies
Background
17. In implementing PUHCA 2005, the Commission provided for waiver
of accounting, recordkeeping and reporting requirements for single
state holding company systems.\24\ The waiver reflects the principle
that, when a system operates substantially within a single state,
ratepayers are adequately protected by state oversight as well as by
federal oversight under the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 18 CFR 366.3(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. In Order No. 667-A, the Commission defined ``single-state
holding company system'' with reference to revenues from in-state
versus out-of-state activities. For purposes of waiver from the
Commission's accounting, record-keeping and reporting requirements, the
Commission defined a single-state holding company system as a system
that derives no more than thirteen percent of its ``public-utility
company revenues'' from outside of a single state.\25\ The Commission
also defined ``public-utility company'' and ``electric utility
company'' to include EWGs, FUCOs and QFs.\26\ As a result, a system
whose traditional utility operations are largely confined to a single
state might be subject to federal accounting, record-keeping and
reporting requirements as a result of owning out-of-state EWGs, FUCOs
or QFs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ 18 CFR 366.3(c)(1).
\26\ 18 CFR 366.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
19. EEI, Sempra, Edison, PPL, and AES suggest that ownership of
out-of-state EWGs, FUCOs or QFs should not affect a system's
eligibility for waiver of federal accounting, recordkeeping and
reporting requirements. They state that ownership of out-of-state EWGs,
FUCOs and QFs did not affect a system's eligibility for the single-
state exemption from public utility holding company regulation under
PUHCA 1935. They suggest that considering ownership of out-of-state
EWGs, FUCOs and QFs now would subject holding company systems to new
obligations and would therefore contradict Congress's goal in PUHCA
2005 of removing regulatory obstacles to investment.
Decision
20. The Commission's intent in adopting the 13 percent of revenues
standard to identify who is a single state holding company system
entitled to a waiver was to use the same 13 percent standard applied by
the SEC under PUHCA 1935. Although we have defined ``public-utility
company'' and ``electric utility company'' to include EWGs, FUCOs, and
QFs, we clarify that we did not intend to include such entities'
revenues for purposes of applying the 13 percent of revenues standard
to identify who is a single state holding company system entitled to
waiver. We will revise the relevant regulatory text in 18 CFR
366.3(c)(1) accordingly.
21. This approach is similar to the section 3(a) exemption under
PUHCA 1935, which exempted single-state holding company systems from
plenary federal oversight of the system's corporate and financial
structure.\27\ The section 3(a) exemption of PUHCA 1935 reflected
Congress's assessment that the states and the federal government,
through corporate and rate regulation, could otherwise effectively
oversee a single-state system without the necessity of public utility
holding company regulation. Existing state and federal regulation
should continue to be sufficient to protect against any abuses
associated with ownership of out-of-state EWGs, FUCOs and QFs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 15 U.S.C. 79c(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. Accordingly, we will amend our regulations to provide that, for
purposes of waiver under section 366.3(c)(1), revenues derived from
EWGs, FUCOs and QFs will not be considered to be ``public-utility
company'' revenues and therefore will not affect the availability of
waiver of federal accounting and related requirements.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ In the separate context of the statutory exemption of PUHCA
2005 section 1275(d), as reflected in 18 CFR 366.5, involving cost
allocation for non-power goods and services in the case of a holding
company system whose public utility operations are confined
substantially to a single state, EEI asks that the Commission not
require that a holding company file a petition for declaratory order
in order to obtain a Commission determination that the holding
company's public utility operations are confined substantially to a
single state. EEI Rehearing Request at 4, 12-13. As a Commission
determination that a holding company's public utility operations are
confined substantially to a single state would be a declaratory
order, the appropriate vehicle to seek such a determination would be
a petition for a declaratory order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Companies That Are Not Primarily Engaged in Transmission
Background
23. In Order No. 667-A, the Commission exempted from its PUHCA 2005
regulations persons that are holding companies with respect to
Commission-jurisdictional utilities when (1) neither the utility nor an
affiliate has captive customers and (2) neither the utility nor an
affiliate owns Commission-jurisdictional transmission facilities or
provides Commission-jurisdictional transmission services.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See 18 CFR 366.3(b)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
24. ALCOA suggests that the Commission should exempt, under 18 CFR
366.3(b)(2) and 366.4(b)(1), i.e., by way of FERC-65A, companies whose
subsidiaries have no captive customers and are not primarily engaged in
transmission in interstate commerce, regardless of whether a subsidiary
owns transmission facilities. According to ALCOA, the Commission's
regulations as they stand require companies such as ALCOA to instead
apply for exemption, under 18 CFR 366.3(d) and 366.4(b)(3), when a
subsidiary owns discrete transmission facilities and acquired those
facilities by what it characterizes as historical coincidence. ALCOA
suggests that there is no regulatory interest in oversight of the
parent company in those circumstances and that, therefore, the parent
company should not be required to apply for exemption.
25. ALCOA also suggests that the Commission must make the exemption
process provided in 18 CFR 366.3(b)(2) and 366.4(b)(1), i.e., by way of
FERC-65A, available to companies such as ALCOA because (1) those
companies were exempted from public utility holding company regulation
under PUHCA 1935, (2) the Commission's notice of proposed rulemaking in
this proceeding suggested that the Commission did not intend to impose
burdens beyond those in PUHCA 1935, and (3) the Commission did not make
the parent company of a transmission owner ineligible for the
notification process until rehearing of the Commission's initial order
in this proceeding. According to ALCOA, to now require ALCOA to apply
for exemption would violate notice requirements of the Administrative
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551-59, and ALCOA's constitutional right to the
equal protection of the laws.
Decision
26. At issue is not whether ALCOA and similar companies are
eligible for exemption from the Commission's PUHCA 2005 regulations but
whether those companies must individually and formally apply for
exemption under 18 CFR 366.3(d) and 366.4(b)(3), rather than submitting
an exemption notification, i.e., a FERC-65A, under 18 CFR 366.4(b)(1).
Contrary to ALCOA's suggestion, at this early stage in our
implementation of PUHCA 2005, there is a strong regulatory interest in
[[Page 42754]]
requiring holding companies that do not qualify for the exemptions or
waivers identified in 18 CFR 366.3(b)(2) and 366.3(c) to apply formally
for exemption. As relevant here, that would include, where no other
exemption or waiver applies, where the company or a subsidiary owns
jurisdictional transmission facilities or provides jurisdictional
transmission service. We do not mean to suggest that on the facts and
circumstances of a particular case an exemption or waiver might not be
appropriate. Rather, at this point in time, the formal application
process gives the Commission the opportunity to make such
determinations on the facts and circumstances of each case. For
example, the process gives the Commission the opportunity to determine
whether there might be significant potential for transmission service
customers to subsidize wholesale sales and, if so, whether the cross-
subsidies could be adequately addressed through rate regulation. Based
on that analysis, the Commission would or would not, as the facts and
circumstances dictate, permit exemption from oversight under the
Commission's PUHCA 2005 regulations.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ In fact, ALCOA has made a formal filing, in Docket No.
EL06-75-000, seeking an exemption. That filing is presently pending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
27. Moreover, the requirement does not impose undue regulatory
burdens. In its request for rehearing, ALCOA cites cases in which the
SEC determined that ALCOA was exempt from holding company regulation
under PUHCA 1935. In light of the SEC's past, active involvement in
determining eligibility for exemption under PUHCA 1935, our requirement
that companies formally apply to us for exemption under the
Commission's PUHCA 2005 regulations (rather than obtaining exemption by
filing a FERC-65A) is unexceptional. It is true that companies like
ALCOA must apply anew for exemption rather than relying on prior SEC
determinations. That obligation flows directly from Congress's decision
to change the governing law and is not an unreasonable cost of doing
business.
28. Finally, the Administrative Procedure Act does not require us
to issue a new notice of proposed rulemaking every time that we make a
change to a proposed rule. The express purpose of the comment,
decision, and rehearing process is to allow the Commission to make
changes to a proposed rule. As evidenced by ALCOA's request for
rehearing, moreover, ALCOA had actual and timely notice and opportunity
to address provisions and changes that affected ALCOA.
4. Pipeline Companies That Make Incidental Retail Gas Sales
Background
29. Pursuant to PUHCA 1935, and specifically section 2(a)(4) of
PUHCA 1935, a natural gas pipeline that was not ``primarily engaged''
in the sale of natural gas at retail was not considered to be a ``gas
utility company.'' \31\ As a result, under PUHCA 1935, a holding
company with interests in that pipeline would not, by virtue of those
interests, be subject to public utility holding company regulation.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ 15 U.S.C. 79b(a)(4).
\32\ 15 U.S.C. 79b(a)(7); see also 17 CFR 250.7(a) (a pipeline
company was not ``primarily engaged'' in the sale of natural gas at
retail if gross revenues from retail sales were less than an
average, annual amount of $5,000,000 over the preceding three
calendar years).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
30. PUHCA 2005 defines ``gas utility company'' without regard to
whether a company is primarily engaged in the retail sale of natural
gas.\33\ In implementing PUHCA 2005, the Commission adopted the
statutory definition of ``gas utility company,'' with the added
clarification that an entity that is engaged only in the marketing of
natural gas is not a ``gas utility company'':
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ EPAct 2005 1262(7).
The term ``gas utility company'' means any company that owns or
operates facilities used for distribution at retail (other than the
distribution only in enclosed portable containers or distribution to
tenants or employees of the company operating such facilities for
their own use and not for resale) of natural or manufactured gas for
heat, light, or power. For the purposes of this subchapter, ``gas
utility company'' shall not include entities that engage only in
marketing of natural and manufactured gas.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ 18 CFR 366.1.
Under that definition, a pipeline that makes incidental retail
sales of natural gas could be interpreted to be a ``gas utility
company,'' such that a parent of the pipeline would be subject to the
Commission's PUHCA 2005 regulations.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ EPAct 2005 1262(8) and (13); 18 CFR 366.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
31. INGAA seeks clarification of the Commission's interpretation of
``gas utility company'' and asks us to find that a company that ``owns
an interstate natural gas pipeline company, which pipeline makes
deliveries to industrial customers and power plants and/or de minimis
deliveries to farmers and/or ranchers located adjacent to the
pipeline's rights-of-way is not, due to such ownership, a `holding
company' under the Commission's PUHCA [2005] regulations.'' INGAA
relies primarily on section 2(a)(4) of PUHCA 1935, which allowed the
SEC to except from the definition of ``gas utility company'' companies
that were not ``primarily engaged in'' retail sales of natural gas.
According to INGAA, section 2(a)(4) of PUHCA 1935 demonstrated
Congressional intent not to impose holding company regulation in the
context of pipeline companies that make incidental retail sales. INGAA
suggests there is no need to change that longstanding practice under
PUHCA 1935 and, in particular, to impose regulatory obligations under
PUHCA 2005 where none existed under PUHCA 1935. It also points out that
under PUHCA 1935 the SEC promulgated a regulation exempting entities
from the definition of ``gas utility company'' if their revenues from
retail distribution of natural gas were de minimis and that the most
recent monetary limit was an average annual amount of $5 million over
the preceding three calendar years.
Decision
32. A holding company is defined in PUHCA 2005 and in the
Commission's PUHCA 2005 regulations based on its ownership of a public-
utility company. A public-utility company, in turn, includes a gas
utility company, but does not include a natural gas company. So, for a
public-utility company that is a gas utility company, its parent may
fall within the definition of a holding company. In contrast, for a
public-utility company that is a natural gas company and not a gas
utility company, its parent would not fall within the definition of a
holding company. INGAA's concern is that some pipelines may make
incidental sales of natural gas at retail. That fact would result in
their also being considered gas utility companies rather than solely
natural gas companies--thus resulting in regulation of their parent
companies as holding companies.
33. The relevant language in PUHCA 2005 at issue here defining
``gas utility company'' and when exemptions would be warranted under
PUHCA 2005 is not identical to the corresponding language in PUHCA 1935
highlighted by INGAA above defining ``gas utility company'' and when
exemptions were warranted under PUHCA 1935. That fact notwithstanding,
we agree with INGAA and believe that the fact that a pipeline makes
sales of natural gas to end-use customers located adjacent to the
pipeline's right of way should not, on that basis alone, lead to the
pipeline's parent being considered a holding
[[Page 42755]]
company under PUHCA 2005.\36\ We will revise the regulatory text
accordingly to add an additional exemption to address such
circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ As we previously noted in both Order No. 667 and Order No.
667-A, we again note that we have independent authority under the
Natural Gas Act to obtain the books and records of regulated
companies and any person that controls such companies if relevant to
jurisdictional activities. 15 U.S.C. 717g.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Additional Clarifications
34. We hereby grant two clarifications to Order No. 667-A. The
first clarification relates to the following statement in the narrative
preamble of Order No. 667-A:
Where the parent holding company qualifies for an exemption or
waiver, the subsidiary holding company would necessarily equally
qualify; phrased differently, if the subsidiary did not qualify for
a particular exemption or waiver, then the parent would not qualify
for that same exemption or waiver either.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Order No. 667-A at P 20, n.41.
EEI and Duke urge us to delete the latter portion of the quoted
sentence that begins with ``phrased differently'' on the grounds that
it creates unnecessary confusion. Upon further review, the first
portion of the above-quoted sentence is sufficiently clear on its own.
We therefore void the latter, ``phrased differently'' portion of the
sentence.
The second clarification relates to section 366.3(a) of our
regulations, which states that holding companies that meet the
requirements of that section are exempt from specified provisions of
the Commission's PUHCA 2005 regulations:
Any person that is a holding company solely with respect to one
or more of the following will be exempt from the requirements of
Sec. 366.2 and the accounting, record-retention, and reporting
requirements of Sec. Sec. 366.21, 366.22, and 366.23 * * * .\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ 18 CFR 366.3(a).
35. The specified provisions include two provisions--sections
366.22 and 366.23--that apply to service companies. Invenergy requests
clarification that, if a holding company is exempt as provided in
section 366.3(a), service companies within the holding company system
are exempt from sections 366.22 and 366.23. We agree with the requested
clarification and will change section 366.3(a) accordingly.
Information Collection Statement
36. The regulations of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
\39\ require that OMB approve information-collection burdens that are
imposed by an agency. OMB has approved the information-collection
burdens that were imposed in Order Nos. 667 and 667-A.\40\ The present
order clarifies those orders. Accordingly, OMB approval for this order
is not necessary. The Commission will send a copy of this order to OMB
for informational purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ 5 CFR 1320.12.
\40\ See OMB Control Nos. 1902-0166, 1902-0216.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
37. Interested persons may obtain information on the information
requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention:
Michael Miller, Office of the Executive Director, ED-34], Phone: (202)
502-8415, Fax: (202) 273-0873, e-mail: michael.miller@ferc.gov.
The Commission Orders
Rehearing and clarification is hereby granted in part and denied in
part as discussed in the body of this order.
By the Commission.
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 366
Electric power, Natural gas, Public utility holding companies and
service companies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
0
In consideration of the foregoing, under the authority of PUHCA 2005,
the Commission is amending Part 366 in Chapter I of Title 18 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
Subchapter U--Regulations Under the Public Utility Holding Company Act
of 2005
PART 366--PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT OF 2005
Subpart A--PUHCA 2005 Definitions and Provisions
0
1. The authority citation for part 366 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Pub. L. 109-58, 1261 et seq., 119 Stat. 594, 972 et
seq.
0
2. Section 366.1 is amended by revising the definitions of ``exempt
wholesale generator'' and ``foreign utility company'' to read as
follows:
Subpart A--PUHCA 2005 Definitions and Provisions
Sec. 366.1 Definitions.
For purposes of this part:
* * * * *
Exempt wholesale generator. The term ``exempt wholesale generator''
means any person engaged directly, or indirectly through one or more
affiliates as defined in this subchapter, and exclusively in the
business of owning or operating, or both owning and operating, all or
part of one or more eligible facilities and selling electric energy at
wholesale. For purposes of establishing or determining whether an
entity qualifies for exempt wholesale generator status, sections
32(a)(2) through (4), and sections 32(b) through (d) of the Public
Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (15 U.S.C. 79z-5a(a)(2)-(4), 79z-
5a(b)-(d)) shall apply.
Foreign utility company. The term ``foreign utility company'' means
any company that owns or operates facilities that are not located in
any state and that are used for the generation, transmission, or
distribution of electric energy for sale or the distribution at retail
of natural or manufactured gas for heat, light, or power, if such
company:
(1) Derives no part of its income, directly or indirectly, from the
generation, transmission, or distribution of electric energy for sale
or the distribution at retail of natural or manufactured gas for heat,
light, or power, within the United States; and
(2) Neither the company nor any of its subsidiary companies is a
public-utility company operating in the United States.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 366.3 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) introductory
text, (b)(2) introductory text, (c) introductory text, and (c)(1), and
by adding paragraph (b)(2)(vii) to read as follows:
Sec. 366.3 Exemption from Commission access to books and records;
waivers of accounting, record-retention, and reporting requirements.
(a) Exempt classes of entities. Any person that is a holding
company solely with respect to one or more of the following will be
exempt from the requirements of Sec. Sec. 366.2 and 366.21 and any
associated service company will be exempt from the requirements of
Sec. Sec. 366.2, 366.22, and 366.23; such person need not make the
filings provided in Sec. 366.4(a) or (b):
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) Commission exemption of additional persons and classes of
transactions.
The Commission has determined that the following persons and
classes of transactions satisfy the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of
this section, and any person that is a holding company solely with
respect to one or more of the following may file to obtain an exemption
for that person or class of transactions, as appropriate, from the
[[Page 42756]]
requirements of Sec. Sec. 366.2 and 366.21 (applicable to holding
companies) and Sec. Sec. 366.2, 366.22, and 366.23 (applicable to the
holding companies' associated service companies), pursuant to the
notification procedure contained in Sec. 366.4(b):
* * * * *
(vii) Natural gas companies that distribute natural or manufactured
gas at retail to industrial or electric generation customers and/or
distribute de minimis amounts of natural or manufactured gas at retail
to farmer or rancher customers located adjacent to the natural gas
company's rights-of-way.
(c) Waivers. Any person that is a holding company solely with
respect to one or more of the following may file to obtain a waiver of
the accounting, record-retention, and reporting requirements of Sec.
366.21 (applicable to holding companies) and Sec. Sec. 366.22 and
366.23 (applicable to the holding companies' associated service
companies), pursuant to the notification procedures contained in Sec.
366.4(c):
(1) Single-state holding company systems; for purposes of Sec.
366.3(c)(1), a holding company system will be deemed to be a single-
state holding company system if the holding company system derives no
more than 13 percent of its public-utility company revenues from
outside a single state (for purposes of this waiver, revenues derived
from exempt wholesale generators, foreign utility companies and
qualifying facilities will not be considered public-utility company
revenues);
* * * * *
0
4. In Sec. 366.7, paragraphs (a) and (b) are revised to read as
follows, and paragraph (e) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 366.7 Procedures for obtaining exempt wholesale generator and
foreign utility company status.
(a) Self-certification notice procedure. An exempt wholesale
generator or a foreign utility company, or its representative, may file
with the Commission a notice of self-certification demonstrating that
it satisfies the definition of exempt wholesale generator or foreign
utility company (including stating the location of its generation);
such notices of self-certification must be subscribed, consistent with
Sec. 385.2005(a) of this chapter, but need not be verified. In the
case of exempt wholesale generators, the person filing a notice of
self-certification under this section must also file a copy of the
notice of self-certification with the state regulatory authority of the
state in which the facility is located, and that person must also
represent to this Commission in its submittal with this Commission that
it has filed a copy of the notice of self-certification with the state
regulatory authority of the state in which the facility is located.
Notice of the filing of a notice of self-certification will be
published in the Federal Register. Persons that file a notice of self-
certification must include a form of notice suitable for publication in
the Federal Register in accordance with the specifications in Sec.
385.203(d) of this chapter. A person filing a notice of self-
certification in good faith will be deemed to have temporary exempt
wholesale generator or foreign utility company status. If the
Commission takes no action within 60 days from the date of filing of
the notice of self-certification, the self-certification shall be
deemed to have been granted; however, consistent with section 32(c) of
the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (15 U.S.C. 79z-5a (c))
any self-certification of an exempt wholesale generator may not become
effective until the relevant state commissions have made the
determinations provided for therein if such determinations are
necessary (if such determinations are not necessary, the notice of
self-certification should state so). The Commission may toll the 60-day
period to request additional information, or for further consideration
of the request; in such cases, the person's exempt wholesale generator
or foreign utility company status will remain temporary until such time
as the Commission has determined whether to grant or deny exempt
wholesale generator or foreign utility company status; however,
consistent with section 32(c) of the Public Utility Holding Company Act
of 1935 (15 U.S.C. 79z-5a (c)), any self-certification of an exempt
wholesale generator may not become effective until the relevant state
commissions have made the determinations provided for therein if such
determinations are necessary (if such determinations are not necessary,
the notice of self-certification should state so). Authority to toll
the 60-day period is delegated to the Secretary or the Secretary's
designee, and authority to act on uncontested notices of self-
certification is delegated to the General Counsel or the General
Counsel's designee.
(b) Optional procedure for Commission determination of exempt
wholesale generator status or foreign utility company status. A person
may file for a Commission determination of exempt wholesale generator
status or foreign utility company status under Sec. 366.1 by filing a
petition for declaratory order pursuant to Sec. 385.207(a) of this
chapter, justifying the request for such status; however, consistent
with section 32(c) of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935
(15 U.S.C. 79z-5a (c)), a Commission determination of exempt wholesale
generator status may not become effective until the relevant state
commissions have made the determinations provided for therein if such
determinations are necessary. (If such determinations are not
necessary, the petition for declaratory order should state so.) Persons
that file petitions must include a form of notice suitable for
publication in the Federal Register in accordance with the
specifications in Sec. 385.203(d) of this chapter.
* * * * *
(e) An exempt wholesale generator shall not be subject to any
requirements of this part other than Sec. 366.7, i.e., procedures for
obtaining exempt wholesale generator status. A foreign utility company
shall not be subject to any requirements of this part other than Sec.
366.7, i.e., procedures for obtaining foreign utility company status.
[FR Doc. E6-12048 Filed 7-27-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P