Summary

On June 22, 2020, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC” or “Commission”) issued an order concluding that the Commission and the United States Bankruptcy Courts have concurrent jurisdiction to review and address the disposition of natural gas transportation agreements (“FERC-jurisdictional agreement”) sought to be rejected through bankruptcy.

On October 28, 2020, FERC declined to abrogate or modify firm natural gas transportation service agreements (“Gulfport TSAs”) between Gulfport Energy Corporation (“Gulfport”) and Rockies Express Pipeline LLC (“Rockies Express”) in response to a Rockies Express petition anticipating a potential Gulfport bankruptcy filing. After an expedited paper hearing, FERC concluded that the public interest does not presently require any modification, and thus, that the Gulfport TSAs on file remain just and reasonable.

On June 22, 2020, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") issued an order concluding that FERC and the U.S. bankruptcy courts have concurrent jurisdiction to review and address the disposition of natural gas transportation agreements that a debtor seeks to reject under section 365(a) of the Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq.).

On October 7, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (“Ninth Circuit”) vacated, as moot, two FERC orders asserting concurrent jurisdiction to review the disposition of certain Pacific Gas & Electric Corporation (“PG&E”) power purchase agreements (“PPAs”) that PG&E sought to reject through bankruptcy. In a brief memorandum decision, a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel explained that the orders had become moot when the bankruptcy court confirmed a reorganization plan that had PG&E assume, rather than reject, the PPAs.

Except for disastrous fires that sparked the largest bankruptcy filing of the year, liabilities arising from the opioid crisis, the fallout from price-fixing, and corporate restructuring shenanigans, economic, market, and leverage factors generally shaped the large corporate bankruptcy landscape in 2019. California electric utility PG&E Corp.

On January 27, 2020, FERC petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (“Sixth Circuit”) for rehearing en banc of that court’s decision finding bankruptcy court-FERC concurrent jurisdiction over certain power purchase agreements. Notwithstanding such concurrent jurisdiction, the Sixth Circuit’s decision finds that the bankruptcy court’s concurrent jurisdiction is paramount, and that therefore, FERC-jurisdictional power purchase agreements are susceptible to rejection in bankruptcy.

FERC proceeding to restrict rejection of a power purchase agreement may be subject to the automatic stay. The debtor had entered into several agreements to purchase power it no longer needed because its reorganization contemplated its exit from the business of selling electricity at retail. The contracts constituted a minimal portion of the debtor’s power contracts and were an insignificant portion of the power market.

A divided Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled in the case of In re FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. on Dec. 12, 2019. The panel decided that the U.S. Bankruptcy Court and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) share jurisdiction when a Chapter 11 debtor moves to reject a power purchase and sale contract over which the FERC has jurisdiction (Power Contract). However, the Sixth Circuit noted that such jurisdiction is not equal; declaring the bankruptcy court’s authority as primary and superior to that of the FERC.

The Bottom Line