May 23, 2012

FERC Reaffirms Policy for Assessing Horizontal Market Power

FERC retains existing market power analytical framework in a new order.

On February 16, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued an order that reaffirms its existing policies regarding the analysis of horizontal market power when reviewing mergers and other transactions under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) and when assessing eligibility for market-based rate authority under FPA Section 205.[1] FERC's order terminates the proceeding it had initiated with a Notice of Inquiry in March 2011 to review the updated Horizontal Merger Guidelines issued by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in 2010 (2010 Horizontal Merger Guidelines).

Horizontal Merger Guidelines

FERC has maintained a five-step analytical framework for assessing horizontal market power in mergers and transactions under FPA Section 203 since it adopted its Merger Policy Statement in 1992. A primary focus of FERC's merger analysis is the competitive effects of a proposed transaction, which FERC analyzes using a Competitive Analysis Screen defined in Appendix A to the Merger Policy Statement. FERC's Appendix A Competitive Analysis Screen is based on the 1992 version of the DOJ/FTC Horizontal Merger Guidelines. The Competitive Analysis Screen entails the definition of product and geographic markets likely to be affected by the proposed transaction and the measurement of changes in market concentrations in the affected markets using defined Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) standards or other relevant statistical measures. FERC has applied its Appendix A analysis in numerous merger reviews.

The 2010 Horizontal Merger Guidelines deemphasize market definition and the assessment of market concentration in favor of a greater focus on price discrimination and other evidence of competitive impacts. The 2010 Horizontal Merger Guidelines also identify higher HHI levels that can trigger a presumption that a transaction poses a potential threat to competition. In addition, the guidelines provide for the use of a range of analytical tools and evidence to review proposed transactions and less reliance on quantitative measures. The 2010 Horizontal Merger Guidelines were met with mixed reviews, with some commenters criticizing the guidelines for being unclear about where to begin the analysis of transactions and less predictive of the outcome of agency merger analyses, and others applauding the flexibility to use a range of analytical tools and evidence in merger reviews.

February 16 Order

In its February 16 order, FERC elected to retain its existing approach for analyzing horizontal market power issues in FPA Section 203 proceedings, finding that its "five-step framework for assessing the competitive effects of a proposed transaction, with the first step consisting of the Competitive Analysis Screen, . . . remains useful in determining whether a merger will have an adverse effect on competition." FERC commended the Appendix A Competitive Analysis Screen for "providing analytic and procedural certainty to industry at a relatively low cost" and rejected arguments that FERC is overly rigid in applying the Competitive Analysis Screen, stating that it believes its "current approach is flexible enough to incorporate theories set forth in the 2010 Guidelines, while still retaining the certainty that the current approach provides."

FERC declined to adopt the 2010 Horizontal Merger Guidelines' higher HHI thresholds, stating that "more stringent thresholds are appropriate, especially given the distinctive characteristics of electricity markets." Citing its extensive experience with electrical markets, FERC elected to retain the HHI thresholds identified in Appendix A.

FERC discussed other aspects of the 2010 Horizontal Merger Guidelines with respect to its merger and transaction analysis but declined to adopt them.

Finally, FERC elected to retain its current horizontal market power analysis for assessing eligibility for market-based rate authority and declined to modify its standard analyses to reflect the 2010 Horizontal Merger Guidelines. FERC will continue to assess horizontal market power in the context of market-based rates using its indicative screens (the Pivotal Supplier Screen and the Market Share Screen) without change to the analyses or to the presumption that a seller that passes both screens does not possess horizontal market power. With respect to the Market Share Screen, FERC will retain its 20% seasonal market share threshold.

 


[1]Analysis of Horizontal Market Power Under the Federal Power Act, 138 FERC ¶ 61,109 (2012).

Copyright © 2012 by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Partner

Michael C. Griffen is a partner in Morgan Lewis's Energy Practice. Mr. Griffen represents electric utilities, generating companies, power marketers, investors and developers, and other electric industry participants in regulatory, commercial, and transactional matters. He has represented electric industry clients before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and other federal and state agencies in merger and restructuring proceedings, complaint proceedings, rate proceedings, and a wide variety of other regulatory matters. He also has represented clients in...

202.739.5257

About the Author

Partner

Stephen Paul Mahinka is the chair of Morgan Lewis's Life Sciences and Healthcare Interdisciplinary Group. He also is a member of both the Antitrust Practice and the FDA and Healthcare Practice. The firm's Life Sciences and Healthcare Group, one of the nation's largest, is consistently ranked among the world's leading practices. Mr. Mahinka has practiced in both the antitrust and FDA/healthcare areas throughout his career, and is the founder of the firm's FDA and Healthcare Practice and a former leader of the firm's Antitrust Practice.

202-739-5205

Contributors

Partner

Floyd L. Norton, IV, is a partner in Morgan Lewis's Energy Practice. Mr. Norton's practice focuses on electric utility issues, with an emphasis on utility regulation and utility responses to competition. Mr. Norton has a broad background in electric utility market power issues and investigations, utility mergers and acquisitions, the negotiation of power contracts, and wholesale power and transmission rates and services.

202.739.5620

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 www.NatLawReview.com 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. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or 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.