October 14, 2019

October 14, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

FERC Issues Notice of Inquiry on Income Tax Allowance Policy Statement and ROE Methodology

On December 15, 2016, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) seeking comment on how to address any double recovery resulting from income tax allowance policy set forth in its Income Tax Allowance Policy Statement and current policies regarding the derivation of return on equity (ROE).  FERC’s existing Income Tax Allowance Policy Statement has been in place since 2005 and permits an income tax allowance for partnerships, or similar pass-through entities, to the extent that partners or members have actual or potential income tax obligations on the partnership entity’s income.

The NOI stems from the July 1, 2016 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit) in United Airlines Inc. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 827 F.3d 122 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (UAL v. FERC).  In that decision, the DC Circuit held that FERC had not adequately demonstrated that the application of its Income Tax Allowance Policy Statement in combination with its use of a discounted cash flow (DCF) methodology to determine ROE does not result in double recovery of taxes for a pipeline organized as a partnership.  The DC Circuit remanded the issue to FERC to develop a mechanism “for which the Commission can demonstrate that there is no double recovery” of partnership income tax costs.  Among the potential options that the DC Circuit outlined was eliminating all income tax allowances and setting rates based on pre-tax returns.  The NOI explicitly notes “the potentially significant and widespread effect of [the decision in UAL v. FERC] upon the oil pipelines, natural gas pipelines, and electric utilities subject to the Commission’s regulation.”  NOI at P 2.

As the DC Circuit did in UAL v. FERC, the NOI references Fed. Power Comm’n v. Hope Natural Gas Co., 320 U.S. 591 (1944) (Hope), where the U.S. Supreme Court stated that “the return to the equity owner should be commensurate with the return on investments in other enterprises having corresponding risks.  That return, moreover, should be sufficient to assure confidence in the financial integrity of the enterprise, so as to maintain its credit and to attract capital.” The NOI invites comments on methods to adjust the current income tax policy or ROE policy to resolve any double recovery of investor-level tax costs for partnerships or similar pass through entities.  Commenters should explain how their proposals address any double recovery of income tax costs resulting from the Commission’s current income tax allowance and rate of return policies while maintaining an adequate return consistent with Hope.  NOI at PP 8 and 17.

Comments should include a detailed explanation of any proposal made, evidentiary support, and an explanation of how the proposed change to the Income Tax Allowance Policy Statement and/or ROE policy should be implemented.  NOI at PP 19-20.  In addition, FERC advises that comments should address the following fundamental concerns raised in UAL v. FERC , which bear on the argument that application of the Income Tax Allowance Policy Statement in combination with the Commission’s current ROE policies results in double recovery at the investor level:

  • The DCF methodology estimates the rate of return that an investor requires in order to invest in the regulated entity.

  • Potential investors evaluate whether to invest in an entity based on the returns they expect to receive after paying any applicable taxes on the investment income, and thus, to attract capital, entities in the market must provide investors a return that covers investor-level taxes and leaves sufficient remaining income to earn their required after-tax return.

  • Because the return estimated by the DCF methodology includes the cash flow needed to cover investors’ income tax liabilities and earn a sufficient after-tax return, the Commission’s policy of allowing partnership entities to recover a separate income tax allowance may result in a double recovery.

  • While allowing a partnership entity to recover the partner-investors’ tax costs is reasonable, allowing a partnership to double recover those tax costs is not.

  • Changes in the share price do not resolve the double recovery issue.  Master Limited Partnership (MLP) investors will demand the same percentage return on the share price whether or not a pipeline receives an income tax allowance.  If an MLP obtains a new revenue source that increases its distributions to investors (such as an income tax allowance that increases its rates), the share price will rise until, once again, investors receive the cash flow necessary to cover investors’ income tax liabilities and earn a sufficient after-tax return.

  • As opposed to an MLP pipeline, the double recovery issue does not arise for a corporation’s income tax allowance.  The corporation pays its corporate income taxes itself.  Accordingly, although a return to investors must cover investor-level taxes and sufficient remaining income to earn their required after-tax return, the corporate income tax is not an investor level tax.  Thus, the corporate income tax cost recovered in the income tax allowance is not reflected in the return estimated by the DCF methodology.

NOI at PP 17-18.  Initial comments are due within 45 days after notice of the NOI is published in the Federal Register and reply comments are due within 65 days after such publication.

Copyright 2019 K & L Gates

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

William Keyser, KL Gates Law Firm, Energy Law Attorney
Partner

William Keyser, a partner in Washington, D.C., focuses his practice on regulatory litigation and transactions involving the nation’s electricity and capacity markets. Will represents clients before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the Department of Energy, federal and state courts and state public utility commissions. His clients include electric utilities, transmission providers, independent power providers, hydro electric power producers, power marketers, public utility holding companies, and debt and equity investors. Will has represented and counseled...

202-661-3863
Sandra Safro, KL Gates Law Firm, Energy Attorney
Partner

Ms. Safro is a partner in the firm's Washington, D.C. office. She focuses her practice on regulatory, policy, and transactional issues related primarily to natural gas, liquefied natural gas (LNG), crude oil, and natural gas liquids (NGLs). Ms. Safro regularly advises clients on matters related to commodity and pipeline transportation issues, including the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) policies related to capacity release and in the negotiation of precedent agreements, negotiated rate agreements, asset management arrangements, transportation service agreements, and the terms and conditions of service included in pipeline tariffs. Ms. Safro also advises clients on, issues related to the import and export of LNG, including commercial agreements related to terminal capacity, developments on Capitol Hill, and proceedings before FERC and the Department of Energy (DOE). She represents clients in natural gas and oil pipeline rate proceedings before the FERC and state agencies and advises clients on pipeline safety issues before the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA).

202-778-9178
Michael O'Neil, KL Gates Law Firm, International Trade Attorney
Partner

Michael O'Neil's practice focuses on international trade, security, information technology, privacy and federal policy.  He advises foreign and domestic clients on both regulatory and legislative solutions.  His recent work has involved counseling U.S. and foreign parties on investment in the U.S., and assisting a range of U.S. clients on critical infrastructure protection, privacy, trade compliance, and Congressional investigations. 

Michael also serves as the North American Director of the Trilateral Commission. He heads up the Trilateral...

202-661-6226
Benjamin Tejblum, KL Gates Law Firm, Energy Law Attorney
Associate

Benjamin Tejblum is an associate in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office and focuses his practice on energy and infrastructure projects and transactions. Mr. Tejblum’s clients include electric utilities, electric transmission owners, independent power producers, power marketers, and public utility holding companies that are active in the electricity markets in the United States. Mr. Tejblum regularly represents clients before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and has counseled clients on matters involving mergers and acquisitions, interconnection procedures and...

202-778-9129