April 22, 2014

Competition Advocacy Group Files Comments in FERC Proceeding Involving Transmission Merger

On January 22, 2013, the American Antitrust Institute (AAI), an independent non-profit organization with a mission to advance the role of competition in the economy and protect consumers, filed comments in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s proceeding involving the proposed merger of the transmission businesses of ITC Holdings Corp. (ITC) and Entergy Corporation (Entergy).  FERC is reviewing the transaction under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act.

If the $1.8 billion transaction is approved, ITC will become one of the largest electric transmission companies in the U.S., with over 30,000 miles of transmission lines spanning 11 states from the Great Lakes to the Gulf Coast.  The merger would more than double ITC’s system peak load (from 26,100 MW to 54,100 MW).  In connection with the transaction, Entergy is obtaining regulatory approval to join the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator (MISO), a Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) that provides open-access transmission service and monitors the transmission system throughout the Midwest United States and the Canadian province of Manitoba.

Unlike Entergy, ITC is focused solely on transmission and does not own electric generation assets.  According to the companies’ application to FERC for authorization, the merger serves the public interest by placing more transmission assets under the ownership of an independent entity with a singular emphasis on transmission and a proven track record of investment, a regional and proactive view toward transmission planning, and the financial strength to invest in transmission projects that bring reliability and economic benefits to customers. 

Despite AAI’s assertion that its comments are neutral as to the likely competitive effects of combining ITC and Entergy transmission, it urges FERC to carefully scrutinize the transaction and to collect and analyze additional information to perform a thorough competitive analysis in determining whether the merger is in the public interest.  AAI provides three reasons for suggesting an in-depth competition review:

  1. The absence of a track record involving RTO control over Entergy’s transmission assets, coupled with concerns that Entergy may have used its transmission assets to constrain competition, raise questions regarding the companies’ claim that the merger will not create or enhance transmission market power or otherwise harm competition. 
  2. A closer look would enable FERC to evaluate the companies’ efficiencies claims.  In particular, AAI questions whether the claimed efficiencies from the proposed transaction are merger-specific, that is, whether they could not be achieved by Entergy on its own.  AAI also argues that the verifiability of the claimed efficiencies is mixed, with some prospective benefits not supported with historical examples from prior acquisitions.
  3. The proposed merger tests the limits of FERC’s policy to defer to RTOs to address competitive concerns surrounding the potential exercise of market power in transmission.  According to AAI, for example, it is unclear how a merged ITC-Entergy will participate in the MISO transmission planning process, and there are questions about how the merged company will set transmission rates during the transition period in which Entergy’s transmission system is integrated into MISO (AAI notes that market power can be exercised even when rates are regulated).

Significantly, AAI refers to a November 2012 statement by the Department of Justice Antitrust Division (DOJ) regarding an ongoing investigation into allegations that Entergy exercised control over its transmission system and fleet of gas-fired power plants to foreclose rival low-cost generators from competing to sell long-term power to wholesale customers.  According to the DOJ statement, Entergy’s commitments to join MISO and to divest its transmission system to ITC will resolve the DOJ’s concerns “by eliminating Entergy’s ability to maintain barriers to wholesale power markets, ensuring that all Entergy service area generation is dispatched independently and at lowest cost, increasing market transparency and oversight, and properly aligning incentives for the construction of transmission.”  Although the DOJ explicitly reserves the right to take enforcement action if Entergy “does not make meaningful and timely progress”, it is clear that the DOJ approves of the ITC-Entergy transmission merger on antitrust grounds.  This may explain why AAI brought its concerns to FERC.

The AAI filing serves as a reminder that energy transactions, including those in the electric power industry, often involve numerous stakeholders with differing viewpoints who can raise a wide range of issues that may need to be addressed by the transaction parties.

© 2014 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP

About the Author


Daniel Hemli advises clients on antitrust issues relating to mergers, acquisitions and joint ventures, and advocacy before federal, state and foreign antitrust authorities. He has represented parties in connection with investigations of numerous national and multinational acquisitions and joint venture transactions across a broad range of industries, including oil and gas, electric power, pharmaceuticals, medical devices and equipment, technology and software, chemicals, banking and financial services, consumer products, entertainment and media, and agriculture. He has...


Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.