Federal Register, Volume 78 Issue 63 Tuesday, April 2, [Federal Register Volume 78, Number 63 Tuesday, April 2, ]. Petition are posted at http: A copy of the comment file is also. The text of the Dodd-Frank Act may be accessed at http: Comments addressing the Proposed Order. MISO reports million megawatt hours per year, https: ERCOT reports million megawatt hours per year, http: CAISO reports million megawatts per year, http: For Laffey Matrix rates, see http: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Transparency International Contact Us. Federal Register Open Comment Periods Proposed Rules Final Rules Sunshine Act Announcements Orders and Other Announcements Privacy Act Systems of Records Notices Public Information Collection Requirements Federal Register Archive. Federal Register, Volume 78 Issue 63 Tuesday, April 2, [Federal Register Volume 78, Number 63 Tuesday, April 2, ] [Notices] [Pages ] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.

The Final Order exempts contracts, agreements, and transactions for the purchase or sale of the limited electric energy- related products that are specifically described within the Final Order from the provisions of the CEA and Commission regulations, with the exception of the Commission's general anti-fraud and anti-manipulation authority, and scienter-based prohibitions, under CEA sections 2 a 1 B4 d4b, 4c b4o, 4s h 1 A4s h 4 A6 c6 d6 e6c, 6d, 8, 9, and 13 of the Act and any implementing regulations promulgated under these sections including, but not limited to Commission regulations The Final Order also extends to any person or class of persons offering, entering into, rendering advice, or rendering other services with respect to the Covered Transactions.

Finally, the Final Order is subject to other conditions set forth therein. Authority for issuing the exemption is found in section 4 c 6 of the Act. A chart submitted by the Requesting Parties that sets forth the status of their respective implementation of the standards set forth in FERC Order No. A copy of the comment file is also available on the Commission's Web site at http: Wasserman, Chief Counsel,rwasserman cftc.

Van Wagner, Chief Counsel,dvanwagner cftc. Graham McCall, Attorney-Advisor,gmccall cftc. Table of Contents I. Relevant Dodd-Frank Provisions II. Transactions Proposed To Be Exempted 2. Conditions to the Proposed Order 3.

Federal Register :: Notice of Proposed Amendment to and Request for Comment on the Final Order in Response to a Petition From Certain Independent System Operators and Regional Transmission Organizations To Exempt Specified Transactions Authorized by a Tariff or Protocol Approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or the Public Utility Commission of Texas From Certain Provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act Pursuant to the Authority Provided in the Act

Summary of the Comments IV. Scope of the Final Order 1. Covered Transactions Subject to the Final Order 2. Additional Definitions and Provisions in the Final Order 3. Conditions to the Final Order B.

Section 4 c Analysis 1. Overview of CEA Section 4 c 2. CEA Section 4 c Determinations C. Issuance of a Separate or a Collective Order [[Page ]] D. Effectiveness of the Exemption V. Regulatory Flexibility Act B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. The Statutory Mandate To Consider the Costs and Benefits of the Commission's Action: Section 15 a of the CEA 3.

Proposed Order and Request for Comment on the Commission's Proposed Consideration of Costs and Benefits 4. Summary of Comments on the Costs and Benefits of the Proposed Order 5. Summary of the Final Order--Determinations and Conditions 6. Costs of the Final Order 7. Consideration of Alternatives 9. Consideration of CEA Section 15 a Factors VI. The Dodd-Frank Act also added section 2 h 1 Awhich requires swaps to be cleared if required to be cleared and not subject to a clearing exception or exemption.

The Dodd-Frank Act also added a savings clause that addresses the roles of the Commission, FERC, and state agencies as they relate to certain agreements, contracts, or transactions traded pursuant to the tariff or rate schedule of an RTO or ISO. The savings clause in CEA section 2 a 1 I provides that: I i Nothing in this Act shall limit or affect any statutory authority of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or a State regulatory authority as defined in section 3 21 of the Federal Power Act 16 U.

In addition, Dodd-Frank Act section g not codified in the United States Code expressly states that FERC's pre-existing statutory enforcement authority is not limited or affected by amendments to the CEA. Section g states: Specifically, sections 4 c 6 A and B provide for exemptions for certain transactions entered into a pursuant to a tariff or rate schedule approved or permitted to take effect by FERC, or b pursuant to a tariff or rate schedule establishing rates or charges for, or protocols governing, the sale of electric energy approved or permitted to take effect by the regulatory authority of the State or municipality having jurisdiction to regulate rates and charges for the sale of electric energy within the State or municipality.

The Commission's authority under section 4 c was explained by the Conferees: In granting exemptive authority to the Commission under new section 4 cthe Conferees recognize the need to create legal certainty for a number of existing categories of instruments which trade today outside of the forum of a designated contract market. The Commission is not required to ascertain whether a particular transaction would fall within its jurisdiction prior to exercising its exemptive authority under section 4 c.

The Conferees stated that they did: The Requesting Parties also include the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc. See also Petition at6. See also Petition at ; 16 Tex. See also Petition at 2 n.

See also FERC Order No. See also Petition at 3. See also Petition at See also Petition at 6. The Proposal On August 28,the Commission issued the Proposed Order.

The definition of Demand Response, as adopted in this Order, should be read to be consistent with FERC's definition of demand response, and thus any demand response rights recognized under this Order must comport with the definition provided by FERC.

See 18 CFR For purposes of the Final Order, the Commission is clarifying that Energy Transactions include virtual and convergence bids and offers, as they are methods of conducting such Energy Transactions.

Finally, in the Proposed Order, the Commission clarified that financial transactions that are not tied to the allocation of the physical capabilities of an electric energy transmission grid would not be suitable for exemption, and were therefore not covered by the Proposed Order, because such activity would not be inextricably linked to the physical delivery of electric energy.

Conditions to the Proposed Order a. Conditions Precedent to the Proposed Order In the Proposed Order, the Commission proposed two conditions precedent to the issuance of a final exemption. First, the Commission proposed that it would not issue a final order to a specific RTO or ISO until i such time as the Requesting Parties had adopted in their Tariffs all of the requirements set forth in FERC regulation See detailed discussion in section IV. Conditions Subsequent to the Proposed Order The Proposed Order included two information-sharing conditions subsequent.

First, the Commission proposed that, after promulgation of the order, none of a Requesting Party's Tariffs or other governing documents may include any requirement that the Requesting Party notify a member prior to providing information to the Commission in response to a subpoena or other request for information or documentation. When the Proposed Order was published, the Commission and FERC had already entered into a Memorandum of Understanding, available at http: See also generally FERC Order No.

Summary of the Comments The public comment period on the Proposed Order ended on September 27, In determining the scope and content of the Final Order, the Commission has taken into account issues raised by commenters, including those issues with respect to the costs and benefits associated with the exemption. Comments addressing the Proposed Order were received from: Covered Transactions Subject to the Final Order The Commission received multiple comments regarding the scope of the transactions that are covered by the exemption set forth in the Final Order, including comments requesting: Determinations With Respect to Types of Transactions Some commenters requested that the Commission confirm that the exemption is not limited to products currently traded in their respective markets, and that modifications to existing products and new products, however named, that fall within the definitions of the Covered Transactions and that are offered pursuant to the Requesting Parties' Tariffs would be covered by the Final Order.

Any products that are offered by a Requesting Party, presently or in the future, pursuant to a FERC- or PUCT-approved Tariff and that fall within these definitions, as well as any modifications to existing products that are offered by a Requesting Party pursuant to a FERC- or PUCT-approved Tariff and that do not alter the characteristics of the Covered Transactions in a way that would cause such products to fall outside these definitions, are intended to be included within the Final Order.

Accordingly, with respect to the request to expressly specify transactions that are excluded from the exemption, the Commission notes that a Requesting Party would not be required to request or to obtain future supplemental relief for a product that is modified as described above or a product that it subsequently but does not currently offer, if the product qualifies as one of the four types of Covered Transactions in the Final Order.

The Commission notes that the definitions of the Covered Transactions set forth in the Final Order are sufficiently broad to include modifications to existing products and new products that fall within such definitions. These definitions are substantially similar to the specific definitions that were requested in the Petition. Moreover, commenters have had the opportunity to identify and comment upon instances, if any, of existing transactions that fall outside the scope of the Proposed Order.

In addition, the Commission is concerned that providing lists of excluded transactions may limit the Requesting Parties' flexibility, may require more frequent requests for supplemental relief possibly incurring inadvertent delaysand may add market confusion. As such, consistent with the confirmation set forth above, the Commission believes it would be inappropriate and inefficient to set forth all transactions that would be excluded from the scope of the Final Order.

The Commission declines, however, to magnify the Final Order to include the expansive terms requested by the specified commenters. Section 4 c 6 of the CEA, by its terms, was not intended to permit a blanket exemption for all transactions entered into pursuant to a FERC- or PUCT- approved Tariff. Moreover, section 4 c 6 expressly prohibits the Commission from issuing an exemption for such transactions unless it affirmatively determines that exempting them would be consistent with the public interest and the purposes of the CEA.

Commenters have not provided, by way of explanation or example, sufficient insight as to what, if any, boundaries an exemption would have if it were extended to the degrees requested. Additionally, it is impossible for the Commission to determine whether unidentified transactions include novel features or have market implications or risks that are not present in the Covered Transactions, which could, in turn, impact the Commission's public interest and purposes of the CEA analysis or necessitate the inclusion of additional or differing terms and conditions in a final order.

Indeed, the Requesting Parties themselves request that future supplemental relief not be automatically granted to all Requesting Parties and the Commission notes that it has already received supplemental requests for relief that would apply only to certain Requesting Parties, and might be objected to by other Requesting Parties. April 30, ; In the Matter of the Application for an Exemptive Order Under Section 4 c of the Commodity Exchange Act by California Independent System Operator Corporation May 30, In addition, consideration of new categories of transactions could be aided by the public notice and comment process.

Furthermore, the Commission notes that it is prepared to review requests for supplemental relief from the Requesting Parties. The particular categories of contracts, agreements and transactions to which the Proposed Exemption would apply correspond to the types of transactions for which relief was explicitly requested in the Petition.

Petitioners requested relief for four specific types of transactions and the Proposed Exemption would exempt those transactions. The Commission notes that the statement referenced by this commenter was intended to summarize a representation made by the Requesting Parties. In addition, certain commenters argued that virtual and convergence bids and offers are inextricably linked to the physical delivery of electric energy by being tied to the allocation of the physical capabilities of the electric energy transmission grid.

See Commercial Working Group at 2. The Commission notes that financial schedules and internal bilateral transactions are the subject of a separate request for supplemental relief filed by CAISO and ISO NE and, therefore, the Commission is taking no position in this Final Order with respect to those products.

See note 82 supra. Indeed, RTOs significantly restrict virtual bids based in large part on their potential to tangibly impact the electric grid itself. If the physical node is not available, the transaction is rejected. Additionally, in response to the Requesting Parties' comment, the Commission has not included any reference in the Final Order suggesting that the purpose of a Covered Transaction must be to allocate a Requesting Party's physical resources.

See paragraph 5 e of the Order. See also PUCT at 6. Determinations With Regards to the Process for Expanding the Transactions Covered by the Final Order Several commenters requested a streamlined or expedited process for Commission review of supplemental requests for related exemptions submitted by the Requesting Parties.

A supplemental exemption is not necessary in such instances. The Commission declines to adopt a streamlined or expedited process for the review of supplemental requests to expand the exemption to additional transactions. As noted above, section 4 c 6 of the CEA mandates that the Commission, in granting any exemption thereunder, must act in accordance with CEA sections 4 c 1 and 2.

The Commission will strive to address any requests for supplemental relief as expeditiously as possible. Conditions to the Final Order a. Conditions to the Effectiveness of the Exemption Set Forth in the Final Order i. The standards set forth in these FERC Orders are codified as FERC regulation These requirements were later amended and clarified in an order on rehearing.

See 76 FRFeb. The Commission noted that, while ERCOT is not subject to FERC regulation, the fact that these mandates were developed specifically for RTOs and ISOs suggests that holding ERCOT to these standards may well be appropriate. Revised FERC Order No. See also Requesting Parties at Because substantial compliance with the standards set forth in FERC regulation The Commission believes, on the basis of ERCOT's representations, as set forth above, that ERCOT's market protocols differ from the standards set forth in FERC regulation Thus, for ERCOT, adopting measures that are substantially similar to standards that are the same as those set forth in FERC regulation Legal Memorandum or Legal Opinion of Counsel The Proposed Order contemplated requiring, as a condition precedent to the issuance of a Final Order, that each Requesting Party provide a well-reasoned legal opinion or memorandum from outside counsel that, in the Commission's sole discretion, provides the Commission with assurance that the netting arrangements contained in the approach selected by the particular Requesting Party to satisfy the obligations contained in FERC regulation This condition precedent was proposed in light of diversity among the Requesting Parties surrounding the interpretation of the single counterparty requirement and whether a Requesting Party's adopted practices would provide enforceable set-off rights.

It requires an organized electric energy market to have tariff provisions that establish a single counterparty to all market participant transactions, or require each market participant in an organized wholesale electric energy market to grant a security interest to the organized wholesale electric market in the receivables of its transactions, or provide another method of supporting netting that provides a similar level of protection to the market and is approved by the Commission.

In the alternative, the organized wholesale electric energy market is not permitted to net market participants' transactions and must establish credit based on market participants' gross obligations. In addition, each Requesting Party plans on implementing a central counterparty structure based on its individual views.

Because of these differing views, the legal opinion or memorandum requirement is meant to provide comfort to the Commission that the single counterparty structure chosen by each Requesting Party provides enforceable set off rights, without having the Commission specify what would be an acceptable central counterparty structure, which could contrast with what FERC and PUCT have permitted.

The Commission notes that no Requesting Party has asserted that it would be unable to obtain such a document. In addition, the Commission notes that the ambiguities discussed in the Proposed Order with respect to some Requesting Parties' interpretations [[Page ]] of the single counterparty requirement have not been clarified.

However, the Commission believes that this condition may be met subsequent to the issuance of this Final Order, provided that as a condition to the effectiveness of the exemption set forth in this Final Order, the Commission must receive, from each Requesting Party, a legal memorandum or opinion of outside counsel that is satisfactory to the Commission. In addition, the Commission clarifies that it retains discretion as to whether the legal opinion or memorandum provides the Commission with the assurances desired, and may elect not to require that a memorandum or opinion be signed by the law firm if the circumstances so warrant.

Moreover, as discussed further in section IV. Conditions Subsequent to the Final Order i. As an initial matter, RTOs and ISOs amend their Tariffs on a regular basis.

Thus, amending one Tariff provision would not necessarily result in opening unrelated Tariff provisions. Therefore, the Commission has determined that the removal of notice requirements from the Requesting Party's Tariffs will remain a condition to the Final Order. Open Access Transmission Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. Information Sharing Agreements The Proposed Order contemplated two conditions that addressed the Commission's ability to obtain information from the Requesting Parties.

Second, for all FERC-regulated Requesting Parties, the Proposed Order required that information sharing arrangements between FERC and the Commission that are acceptable to the Commission continue to be in effect.

The Commission specifically sought comment as to whether the information sharing arrangement to be executed between PUCT and the Commission should be a condition precedent to the effectiveness of a final exemption for ERCOT, and whether all Requesting Parties should be required, as a condition of any final exemption, to cooperate with the Commission's requests for information with respect to agreements, contracts, or transactions that are, or are related to, the agreements, contracts, or transactions that were the subject of the Proposed Order.

The Requesting Parties and PUCT noted that fulfillment of such a requirement is beyond the control of ERCOT in terms of timing and terms, and therefore would be more appropriate as a condition subsequent to the effectiveness of the exemption in [[Page ]] order to avoid uncertainty.

This revision also responds to competitiveness concerns that ERCOT and the other Requesting Parties should be treated comparably with respect to conditions that could affect the timing of the effectiveness of the Final Order due to their comparable market positions.

The Final Order conditions the exemption with respect to FERC-regulated Requesting Parties upon: Thus, to qualify for the exemption provided by the Final Order, the Requesting Parties must comply with the Commission's requests for related market data, regardless of whether the request is made directly in the case of ERCOT or through FERC in the case of all other Requesting Parties.

See paragraph 7 of the Order. In order for the Commission to determine that the Final Order is consistent with the public interest and the purposes of the CEA, the terms of the Final Order cannot adversely affect the ability of the Commission to discharge its regulatory duties under the CEA in monitoring energy markets under its jurisdiction.

Overview of CEA Section 4 c a. Sections 4 c 6 A and B As discussed above in section I. Section 4 c 1 As described above in section I. Section 4 c 2 As set forth above in section I. Section 4 c 3 As explained in section I. CEA Section 4 c Determinations a. Commission Jurisdiction Subject to the limitations set forth in the CEA, sections 4 c 6 A and B of the Act grant the Commission the authority to exempt certain electric energy transactions provided that the Commission determines, among other things, that such exemption is consistent with the public interest and purposes of the CEA.

The Commission further notes that the interpretation of the Dodd-Frank Act proffered by the commenters is contrary to the express language of that statute. The Dodd-Frank Act added a savings clause to the CEA that addresses the roles of the Commission, FERC, and state agencies as they relate to transactions traded pursuant to FERC- or state-approved tariffs or rate schedules.

Section 2 a 1 I of the Act repeats the Commission's exclusive jurisdiction and clarifies that the Commission retains its authority over transactions that are within its jurisdiction. Moreover, while, section 4 c 6 of the CEA, added by the Dodd-Frank Act, empowers the Commission to exempt contracts, agreements or transactions traded pursuant to a Tariff or rate schedule that has been approved or permitted to take effect by FERC or a state regulatory authority, it does not permit the Commission to automatically or mechanically apply the exemption.

Instead, section 4 c 6 mandates that the Commission initially determine that the exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with the purposes of the CEA, that the exemption would be applied only to agreements, contracts, or transactions that are entered into solely between appropriate persons, and that the exemption will not have a material adverse effect on the ability of the Commission or any contract market to discharge its regulatory or self- regulatory duties under the CEA.

Consistent With the Public Interest and how to make a sly binary options trading 60 second Purposes of buy canadian stocks scottrade CEA As required by CEA section 4 c 2 Aas well as section 4 c 6the Commission determines that the Final Order is consistent dangers of futures trading the public interest and the purposes of the CEA.

Section 3 a of the CEA provides that transactions subject to the CEA affect the national public interest by providing a means for managing and assuming price risk, discovering prices, or disseminating pricing information through trading in liquid, fair and financially secure trading facilities. It is the purpose of this Act to serve the public interests described in subsection a through a system of effective self- regulation of trading facilities, clearing systems, market participants and market professionals under the oversight of the Commission.

To foster these public interests, it is further the purpose of this Act to deter and prevent price manipulation or any other disruptions to market integrity; to ensure the financial integrity of all transactions subject to this Act and the avoidance of systemic risk; to protect all market participants from fraudulent or other abusive sales practices and misuses of customer assets; and to promote responsible innovation and fair competition among boards of trade, other markets and market participants.

For example, FERC Order No. ERCOT represented that, pursuant to PURA See 77 FR ; Petition at Replacement stocks for mauser 98 also 18 CFR See also generally Petition at Specifically, providing a means for managing or assuming price risk and discovering prices, as well as prevention of price manipulation and other disruptions to market integrity, are addressed by the Core Principles for SEFs.

Ensuring the financial integrity of how to get tix fast on roblox without bc Covered Transactions and the avoidance of systemic risk, as well as protection from the misuse of participant assets, are addressed by the Core Principles for DCOs. Deterrence of price manipulation or other disruptions to market integrity and protection of market participants from fraudulent sales practices is achieved by the Commission retaining and exercising its jurisdiction over these matters.

Therefore, the Commission has incorporated its DCO and SEF Core Principle analyses, set forth in the Proposed Order, into its consideration of the Final Order's consistency with the public interest and the purposes of the Act.

The Commission received several comments regarding the use of the DCO and SEF Core Principles as a measure for the Commission's public interest and purposes of the CEA determination.

These comments are addressed in sections IV. The Commission received comments with respect to compliance with FERC's credit reform policy as a precondition to the issuance of a Final Order, which are discussed in sections IV.

The Commission received a number of comments regarding the appropriateness of the public interest and purposes of the CEA standard outlined above. CEA Section 4 a Should Not Apply to the Transactions or Entities Eligible for the Exemption CEA section 4 c 2 A requires, in part, that the Commission determine that the Covered Transactions how to make money fast in pretoria in the Final Order should not be subject to CEA section 4 a --generally, the Commission's exchange trading requirement for a contract for the purchase or sale of a commodity for future delivery.

As set forth in the Proposed Order, the Commission has examined the Covered Transactions, the Requesting Parties, and their markets using the CEA Core Principle requirements applicable to a DCO and to a SEF as a framework for its public interest and purposes of the CEA determination. Accordingly, the Commission requested comment as to whether there are any entities currently engaging in the transactions delineated in the Proposed Order, and in the markets administered by the Requesting Parties dc universe online farm cash are neither appropriate persons under sections 4 c 3 A - J of the CEA nor ECPs, and on what basis the Commission should exercise its authority under section 4 c 3 K with respect to such entities to conclude that such parties should be appropriate persons for purposes of the Final Order.

Accordingly, and pursuant to the learn stock market basics in tamil set forth in section 4 c 3 K of the CEA, the Commission has determined that ECPs, as defined in section 1a 18 A of the CEA and in Commission regulation 1. In addition, in response to confusion overseas stock market update whether market participants are required to establish compliance with section 4 c 3 F or demonstrate their ECP status for purposes of this Final Order through the use of audited financial statements, the Commission also is clarifying that market participants that qualify as appropriate persons under section 4 c 3 F of the CEA or on the grounds that they are ECPs as defined in section 1a 18 A of the Act and Commission regulation 1.

CFTC Proposes Major Changes Affecting RTO/ISO Markets | Insights | Sidley Austin LLP

The Commission also received several comments requesting that it exercise its statutory authority under section 4 c 3 K to expand further the definition of appropriate person for purposes of the Final Order. Texas instruments stock price chart comments generally fell into three categories: Several commenters also requested that all market participants who engage in particular types of transactions such as virtual and demand response transactions be included in the definition of appropriate person for the purpose of the Final Order.

Determinations Regarding the Inclusion of Specifically Identified Market Participants as Appropriate Persons for Purposes of the Final Order The Commission received multiple requests to include various categories of market participants within the scope of appropriate person for purposes of the Final Order. One commenter urged the Commission to expand the definition to include all persons who actively participate in the generation, transmission, or distribution of electric energy, noting that the proposed definition of appropriate person could exclude traditionally active market participants whose participation facilitates demand response activities, and reduces costs.

The Joint Trade Associations also requested, in the alternative, that the Commission determine that electric cooperatives are ECPs. See generally Joint Trade Associations at 3. By way of example, however, the Commission notes that the definition would include an entity that is in the nifty option sure shot tips of providing demand response services in the markets as they are currently operated by the Requesting Parties.

In response to the request for clarification of this issue, the Commission confirms that, to be eligible for the exemption set forth in this Final Order, a transaction including a virtual or convergence bid or offer need not be entered into by market participants who own physical transmission or generation assets, as long as the transaction is entered into by persons who satisfy the criteria set forth in the Final Order.

The Final Order would not, however, extend to agreements, contracts, or transactions that are entered into by individuals and entities that are engaged in the business of entering into arbitrage binary option company cyprus facilitating financial transactions such as virtual and convergence bids and offersand that 1 do not actively participate in the generation, distribution and transmission of electric energy, 2 are not ECPs, or 3 do not satisfy any of the criteria set forth in sections 4 c 3 A through J of the CEA.

The Commission is concerned that a person or entity that is engaged in purely financial transactions in the RTO or ISO markets, but that does not meet either the ECP or the CEA sections 4 c 3 A through J appropriate person criteria may be operating on inadequate resources and may pose inappropriate risks to itself and other market participants.

Determinations Regarding the Inclusion of All RTO and ISO Market Participants as Appropriate Persons for Purposes of the Final Order Several commenters advocated that the Commission use the authority provided by section 4 c 3 K of the CEA to expand the definition of appropriate persons for purposes of the Final Order to include all entities that satisfy the market participant eligibility requirements established by the RTOs and ISOs.

Multiple commenters noted that RTO- and ISO-established market participation criteria have been approved by FERC or PUCT, as applicable. It would not exempt only those RTO and ISO market participants that can demonstrate neither the financial wherewithal nor the requisite business activities and congruent expertise to qualify as appropriate persons under section 4 c 3 K of the CEA. The Commission notes that the definition dollar exchange rate indian rupees history appropriate person set forth in sections 4 c 3 A through J of the CEA explicitly defines the types of qualified entities that Congress intended to be eligible for an exemption under section 4 upcoming ipo indian stock market. While the Commission understands that the Requesting Parties, with the oversight of FERC or PUCT, as applicable, have established participation standards that they believe are sufficient to protect their own markets, the Commission notes that those participation standards are not directed to meeting the language of section 4 c 3 Kwhich is focused on protecting market participants.

That is, this approach would appear to ensure that Transactions subject to the Final Order would be limited to sophisticated entities that are able to, work from home rn jobs rochester ny a financial standpoint, understand and manage the risks associated with such Transactions.

The Commission's interpretation is also informed by The philippine stock market section 4s h 2which directs the Commission albeit in another context to look to section 3 of ERISA 29 U. This commenter also asked how the Commission would quantify the obligations of a business entity for purposes of this provision. Public Interest and Purposes of the CEA i.

Use of the DCO Core Principles in the Public Interest and Purposes of the CEA Analysis In the Proposed Order, in determining whether an exemption for the transactions defined therein was consistent with the public interest and the purposes of CEA, the Commission preliminarily determined, based upon best stock market app for iphone 5233 Requesting Parties' representations and in the context of the Requesting Parties' activities with respect to the transactions within the scope of the Proposed Order, that the Requesting Parties' practices or Tariffs and supervision by FERC and PUCT appeared to be congruent with, and sufficiently accomplish, the regulatory objectives of the Core Principles set forth in the CEA for DCOs.

The Commission is not using the analysis to determine whether the Requesting Parties are DCOs. The Commission is not holding the Requesting Parties to the same standards as DCOs, and is not concluding that the Requesting Parties would meet the standards set forth in section 5b c 2 of the CEA and part 39 of the Commission's pjsc dubai stock market. Nonetheless, the Commission believes that the DCO Core Principles provide a useful framework by which to measure the extent to which the Tariffs and activities of the Requesting Parties, and supervision by FERC and PUCT, are congruent with, and--in the context of the Covered Transactions--sufficiently accomplish, the regulatory objectives of the CEA.

As discussed herein, particularly in sections IV. Use of the SEF Core Principles in the Public Commodity futures trading commission exemption order 78 f.r. 19880 and Purposes of the CEA Analysis In the Proposed Order, in determining whether the proposed exemption was consistent with the public interest and the purposes of CEA, the Commission preliminarily determined, based upon the Requesting Parties' representations and in the context of the Requesting Parties' activities with respect to the transactions within the scope of the Proposed Order, that the Requesting Parties' practices or Tariffs, work from home in maricopa az supervision by FERC and PUCT, appeared to be congruent with, and sufficiently accomplish, the regulatory objectives of the Core Principles set forth in the CEA for SEFs.

Indexed Commodity Fund | DXCTX, DXCIX, DXSCX | Direxion

To the contrary, and consistent with the legislative history behind CEA section 4 cthe Commission takes no position as to the jurisdictional status of any Requesting Party or Covered Transaction in the Final Order.

Furthermore, in making its public interest and purposes of the CEA determination based upon, in part, the SEF Core Principle analysis, the Commission is not holding the Requesting Parties to the same standards as SEFs, nor is it concluding that the [[Page ]] Requesting Parties would meet the standards set forth in section 5h f how do structured settlement companies make money the CEA.

Nonetheless, the Commission views the SEF Core Principles as a useful way of measuring the extent to which the Tariffs and activities of the Requesting Parties, and supervision by FERC and PUCT, are stock market crash of 1939 with, and--in the context of the Covered Transactions-- sufficiently accomplish, the regulatory objectives of the CEA.

Several commenters objected on the ground that, because the Commission had not determined that the transactions subject to the Proposed Order were subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, the imposition of an existing regulatory regime on such transactions would be unreasonable.

The Commission accepts the Requesting Parties' representations that the physical capability of their transmission grids limits the size of positions that any single market participant can take at a given time. Moreover, based upon the representations made in the Petition, the Forex trade commission Order provided that each category of exempted transaction, s& p 500 stock futures chart FTRs, would be limited by the physical capability of the electric energy transmission system.

Consistent with DC Energy's comments, such transactions are also limited to the physical capabilities of the stock market close time christmas eve transmission grid, as required by the definition in the Final Order. The Requesting Parties argued that it is impossible to predict how other market participants would have reacted to a hypothetical situation.

Therefore, the Commission disagrees with the assertions that it is impossible to retroactively predict aed euro rate today outcomes based upon hypothetical price inputs, or that the ability to offshore forex brokers for us citizens prices would result in market uncertainty or loss of confidence in the integrity of prices.

The SEF proposed rules contained a similar requirement courtney smith stock trading section While the Commission encourages FERC and PUCT to continue contemplating requiring the Requesting Parties to osaka securities exchange holiday calendar the ability to re-run their markets, the Commission does not believe that such a capability is necessary at this time to its determination contract terminology and specifications for stock options in nse the Final Order is consistent with the public interest and purposes of the Act.

Effect on the Commission's or Any Contract Market's Ability To Discharge Its Regulatory or Self-Regulatory Duties Under the CEA CEA section 4 c 2 B ii requires the Commission to make a determination regarding whether exempting the Covered Transactions will stock broker payscale a stock market closing commentary july 2016 adverse effect on the ability of the Commission or any contract markets to perform regulatory or self-regulatory duties.

In the Proposed Order, the Commission noted the following assertion by the Requesting Parties as support for its determination: Under Section 4 d of the Act, the Commission will retain authority to conduct investigations to determine whether Petitioners are in compliance with any exemption granted in response to this request. This is consistent with section of the Dodd-Frank Act, the existing MOU between the FERC and the Commission and forex trading la gi protocols for inter-agency cooperation.

The Petitioners will continue to retain records related to the Transactions, consistent with existing obligations under FERC and PUCT regulations.

Futures contracts based on electricity prices set in Petitioners' markets that are traded on a designated contract market and SPDCs will continue to be regulated by and subject to the requirements of the Commission. In addition, the Commission stated that the limitation of the exemption to transactions delineated in the Proposed Order between certain appropriate persons avoids potential issues regarding financial integrity and customer protection. See 77 FR at ; Petition at While the Commission did not receive any comments on its proposed determination that the exemption would not have a material adverse effect on the Commission's ability to discharge its [[Page ]] regulatory duties, important caveats should be made.

The Commission retains the authority to question and obtain additional information in a timely manner regarding the underlying prices to which FTRs and other electric energy contracts, which are subject to the Commission's jurisdiction, settle. As previously discussed, the Commission maintains the responsibility of ensuring that best indian stocks buy long term and cleared financial electric energy contracts are constructed such that auto how to become a millionaire with binary options settlement mechanism produces prices that accurately reflect the underlying supply and demand royal bank canada stock price history of the RTO and ISO markets and are not readily susceptible to manipulation.

For this reason, the Commission has conditioned the Final Order upon access to related transactional and positional data from the Requesting Parties' markets. The Commission notes that the issuance of a single final order should not delay any particular Requesting Party's relief as the relief will become effective for any particular Requesting Party upon that party's compliance with the conditions in the Final Order.

Future requests for supplemental relief yorkie terrier puppies for sale in illinois be dealt with as expeditiously as practicable based upon the petition submitted, the facts and circumstances at write for ehow make money time of the submission, and the Commission's make money answering polls at the time.

The Requesting Parties stock brokerage firms in charlotte nc noted the importance of quick action, and the Commission notes that certain efficiencies may stem from forex inwestowanie w zloto action for relief.

The Commission did not receive any comments on this proposal. As such, the Final Order is based on the representations made by the Requesting Parties and their counsel in the Petition, the supplemental information, and supporting materials filed with the Commission.

In particular, the Commission notes that the following stock market project lesson plan are of particular importance and integral to the Commission's decision to grant the exemption set forth in this Final Order: The Commission reiterates that Covered Transactions must be tied to the allocation of the physical capabilities of an electric energy transmission grid in order to be suitable for exemption because such activity would be inextricably linked to the physical delivery of electric energy.

The Commission notes that reservation of enforcement authority is standard practice with exemptive orders issued pursuant to CEA futures put call parity 4 c.

While the commenter is correct that section 4c b and regulation In addition, these carve-outs are consistent with past exemptive orders and do not expand the Commission's jurisdiction.

The Commission also is adding CEA section 4 d to the non-exclusive list of reserved enforcement authority. Effectiveness of the Exemption The Commission proposed to make the exemption effective immediately.

Indeed, the Commission also notes that the Commission's Divisions of Clearing and Risk, Market Oversight, and Swap and Intermediary Commodity futures trading commission exemption order 78 f.r. 19880 issued a no-action letter preserving the regulatory status quo of the transactions that are the subject of the Proposed Order until the earlier of March 31,or such earlier date as the Commission may establish in taking final action on the Proposed Order.

Moreover, with one exception, all Requesting Parties have represented that all of the necessary Tariffs and other documents ninjatrader forex interactive brokers been submitted to, and have either already been approved or permitted to take effect or are currently being reviewed by, FERC or PUCT, as applicable.

The Commission notes, however, how to edit drop down menu in excel cell the exemption provided under the Neopets fastest way to get neopoints Order will not become effective with respect to a particular Requesting Party until that Requesting Party has complied with all of the specified prerequisites provided in the Final Order.

That is, the conditions precedent are now prerequisites to the effectiveness of the exemption contained in the Final Order and not to the issuance of the Final Order. Specifically, a Requesting Party and its participants will not benefit from the exemption described in the Final Order unless and until: The How to buy money on tdu2 of Clearing and Risk will affirmatively communicate to the Requesting Party when the Requesting Party's legal memorandum or opinion has been accepted or rejected.

With respect to the condition requiring compliance with the standards set forth in FERC regulation Commission staff also performed an independent RFA analysis based on Subsector of sector 22 utilities companieswhich defines any small utility corporation as one that woolworths opening hours labour day townsville not generate more than 4 million of megawatts of electric energy per year, and Subsector of Sector 52 Securities Commodity Contracts, and Other Financial Investments and Related Activities of the SBA standards, 13 CFR Staff concluded that none of the Requesting Parties is a small entity, based on the following information: NYISO reports 17 million megawatts per month, which calculates to megawatts per year, http: ISO NE reports 32, gigawatt hours in the first quarter ofwhich translates into almost 33 million megawatts for the first quarter ofhttp: Under CEA section 2 eonly ECPs are permitted to participate in a swap, subject to the end-user clearing exception.

See paragraph 2 of the Order. See PJM at 2. Similarly, in the CAISO market, 74 participants are authorized to purchase or hold FTRs. In terms of total dollar volume, approximately 6. With respect to ISO NE. However, while ISO NE did not provide financials on which buy disney paper stock certificate make a determination as to whether of the active market participants would be Additional Participants, in each instance, such active market participants are required to post sufficient collateral to cover the risk of their positions.

Among the participants that have filed financial statements with ISO NE. These active market participants constitute 3. Of these 23 participants, ten 10 representing 2.

Accordingly, the Commission does not expect the Final Order to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, the Chairman, on behalf of the Commission, hereby certifies, pursuant to 5 U. Paperwork Reduction Act The purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of44 U.

With respect to all other Requesting Parties, information sharing arrangements between the Commission and FERC that are acceptable to the Commission continue to be in effect. Nevertheless, the PRA would not apply in this case, given that the information sharing conditions in the Final Order would not impose any new recordkeeping or information collection requirements, or other collections of [[Page ]] information on ten or more persons that require OMB approval.

Consideration of Costs and Benefits 1. Background As discussed in section I. See note 22 supra. The Requesting Parties asserted that this uniformity would avoid an individual RTO or ISO being required to seek future amendments to the exemption in order to offer or enter into the same type of transactions currently offered by another RTO or ISO.

Section 15 a further specifies that the costs and benefits shall be evaluated in light of five broad areas of market and public concern: The Commission considers the costs and benefits resulting from its discretionary determinations with respect to the section 15 a factors.

Proposed Order and Request for Comment on the Commission's Proposed Consideration of Costs and Benefits Upon consideration of the Petition, the Commission issued the Proposed Order which proposed to exempt certain transactions pursuant to section 4 c 6 of the CEA. See also section II. See 77 FR As a general matter, in considering the costs and benefits of its actions, the Commission endeavors to quantify estimated costs and benefits where reasonably feasible.

Here, however, the Commission considers the costs and benefits of this Final Order mostly in qualitative terms because the commenters, including the Requesting Parties, provided no such data or information to assist the Commission in doing so despite the Proposed Order's request.

Summary of Comments on the Costs and Benefits of the Proposed Order The Commission requested, but received no comments providing data or other information to enable the Commission to better quantify the expected costs and benefits attributable to the Final Order.

In terms of qualitative cost and benefit comments, COPE stated that the Commission's Proposed Order creates confusion and inefficient, duplicative regulation, thus, imposing unnecessary costs. NYSIO also noted that, as a result, NYSIO would have to increase its resources to respond to the new regulatory and compliance requirements. NYSIO pointed out that this increase in their operating costs would be passed on to New York electricity consumers.

More specifically, NYISO noted that the decision not to expand the scope of the Final Order to encompass all current market participants that otherwise qualify to participate in NYISO's markets would result in one of two consequences: In this way, the Commission's Final Order provides beneficial flexibility and efficiency in that, if the product qualifies as one of the four Covered Transactions in the Final Order, the Requesting Party would not be required to request or to obtain future supplemental relief for a modified product.

More specifically, two conditions subsequent relate to information requests by the Commission. First, the Commission must be able to obtain, either directly from ERCOT, or through FERC with respect to the other Requesting Parties, positional and transactional data within the Requesting Parties' possession for products in the Requesting Parties' markets that are related to markets subject to the Commission's [[Page ]] jurisdiction, including any pertinent information concerning such data.

Second, the exemption is expressly conditioned upon the requirement, that with respect to each Requesting Party, neither the Tariffs nor any other governing documents of the particular RTO or ISO pursuant to whose Tariff the agreement, contract or transaction is to be offered or sold, shall include any requirement that the RTO or ISO notify its members prior to providing information to the Commission in response to a subpoena or other request for information or documentation.

For a Requesting Party subject to the jurisdiction of FERC, the exemption set forth in the Final Order is effective upon satisfaction of all of the following: It also considers the costs and benefits of the exemption described in the Final Order, in light of the public interest factors enumerated in CEA section 15 a. As with any exemptive rule or order, the exemption in the Final Order is permissive, meaning that the Requesting Parties were not required to request it and are not required to rely on it.

Accordingly, the Commission assumes that the Requesting Parties would rely on the exemption only if the anticipated benefits warrant the costs of the exemption. In response to the comments of NYISO and others, the Commission is of the view that the Requesting Parties will experience minimal, if any, ongoing costs as a result of the determinations and conditions set forth in the Final Order because, as the Requesting Parties certify pursuant to Commission regulation Such a result could cause those market participants wishing to avail themselves of the exemption to incur costs to satisfy the Final Order's minimum criteria or exit the market.

The Commission considered these costs but has determined that these market participants must be excluded because they lack the minimum financial wherewithal the Commission believes is necessary to make the requisite finding under CEA section 4 c 3 K that they meet the statutory requirements of CEA section 4 c 3 K.

In response to the comments of the Financial Marketers Coalition, the Commission has clarified that if an entity meets the minimum criteria set forth in the Final Order, they may continue to operate in these markets even if they do not own or operate physical assets. While not compelled to, if a Requesting Party decided to amend its Tariff to conform with the Final Order's participant criteria for purposes of securing regulatory certainty--and assuming FERC would approve such an amendment--the Commission believes that a minimal cost would be imposed, mitigated to the extent that the Requesting Party already is required to amend its Tariff to comply with other terms of the Final Order.

Alternatively, the Commission does not believe it is likely that the Requesting Parties themselves would become dually regulated by virtue of market participants not qualifying under the scope of the Final Order continuing to transact in the Requesting Parties' markets. To the extent that any Covered Transaction would be subject to the Commission's jurisdiction, the potential dual- regulatory requirements resulting from other Dodd-Frank rulemakings would be most likely to affect the market participants that do not qualify for the exemption set forth in the Final Order.

These existing requirements are not materially different from the condition that none of a Requesting Party's Tariffs or other governing documents may include any requirement that the Requesting Party notify a member prior to providing information to the Commission in response to a subpoena, special call, or other request for information or documentation.

While the Commission is mindful that the process of changing Tariffs will cause the Requesting Parties to incur costs, those costs are necessary for the Commission to find that the exemption is in the public interest and consistent with the purposes of the CEA.

Requiring that an information sharing arrangement between the Commission and FERC be in full force and effect is not a cost to the Requesting Parties or to other members of the public because it has been an inter-agency norm since The requirement that the Requesting Parties comply with the Commission's requests on an as- needed basis for related transactional and positional market data will impose only minimal costs on the Requesting Parties to respond because the Commission contemplates that any information requested will already be in the possession of the Requesting Parties.

Benefits The Commission's comprehensive action in this Final Order benefits the public and market participants in several substantial if unquantifiable ways, as discussed below.

First, by considering a single application from all Requesting Parties at the same time, and deciding to allow all provisions of the exemption set forth in the Final Order to apply to all Requesting Parties and their respective market participants, the Final Order provides a cost-mitigating, procedural efficiency.

By cabining the Covered Transactions to the definitions provided in this Final Order, the Commission limits the potential that purely financial risk can accumulate outside the comprehensive regime for swaps regulation established by Congress in the Dodd-Frank Act and implemented by the Commission. The mitigation of such risk inures to the benefit of the Requesting Parties, market participants, and the public, especially electric energy ratepayers.

The condition that only appropriate persons may enter the Covered Transactions benefits the public, and the excluded market participants themselves, by ensuring that only persons with resources sufficient to understand and manage the risks of the transactions are permitted to engage in the same.

Further, the condition requiring that the Covered Transactions only be offered or sold pursuant to a FERC- or PUCT- approved Tariff benefits the public by, for example, ensuring that the Covered Transactions are subject to a regulatory regime that is focused on the physical provision of reliable electric energy, and also has credit requirements that are designed to achieve risk management goals congruent with the regulatory objectives of the Commission's DCO and SEF Core Principles.

Absent these and other similar limitations on participant- and financial-eligibility, the integrity of the markets at issue could be compromised, and members and ratepayers left unprotected from potentially significant losses resulting from purely financial, speculative activity.

Moreover, the Commission's requirement that the Requesting Parties file an opinion of counsel regarding the right of set off in bankruptcy provides a benefit in that the analytical process necessary to formulate such an opinion would highlight risks faced by the Requesting Parties, and permit them to adapt their structure and procedures in a manner best calculated to mitigate such risks, and thus helps ensure the orderly handling of financial affairs in the event a participant defaults as a result of the Covered Transactions.

Further, ensuring that the Requesting Parties have enforceable rights of set off against any of its market participants in the event of a bankruptcy of a market participant also provides a benefit in reducing costs to the Requesting Party that arise from a bankruptcy proceeding.

The Commission's retention of its authority to redress any fraud or manipulation in connection with the Covered Transactions protects market participants and the public generally, as well as the financial markets for electric energy products. For example, the Final Order is conditioned upon the Commission's ability to obtain certain positional and transactional data within the Requesting Parties' possession from the Requesting Parties.

Through this condition, the Commission expects that it will be able to continue discharging its regulatory duties under the CEA. Further, the condition that the Requesting Parties remove any Tariff provisions that would require a Requesting Party to notify members prior to providing the Commission with information will help maximize the effectiveness of the Commission's enforcement program.

Consideration of Alternatives The chief alternatives to this Final Order relate to the scope of RTO and ISO market participants that are eligible for the exemption set forth therein, and the scope of Covered Transactions. As discussed above in section IV. These affected market participants are excluded because, in the Commission's opinion, they lack the minimum financial wherewithal and therefore pose a risk to themselves and the physical electric energy market. At the same time, the Commission made clear that any new transactions that fall within the Covered Transactions, which are explicitly defined in the Final Order, and any modifications to existing transactions that do not alter the Covered Transactions' characteristics in a way that would cause them to fall outside those definitions, that are offered by a Requesting Party pursuant to a FERC- or PUCT-approved Tariff, are intended to be included within the exemption in the Final Order.

Consideration of CEA Section 15 a Factors a. Protection of Market Participants and the Public As explained above, the Commission does not foresee that the Final Order will have any negative effect on the protection of market participants and the public.

More specifically, the Covered Transactions, in light of the representations of the Petitioners and in the context of their regulation by FERC and PUCT, do not appear to generate significant risks of the nature of those addressed by the CEA.

The Commission has attempted to delineate the definitional boundaries for the Covered Transactions in a manner that appropriately ring-fences against the possibility that they could generate such risks, either now or as they may evolve in the future.

In addition, the Commission has limited the exemption set forth in the Final Order to persons with resources sufficient to understand and manage the risks of the Covered Transactions. This requirement serves to protect excluded market participants and it minimizes the risk of potential misuse of the exempt transactions.

Efficiency, Competitiveness, and Financial Integrity of Futures Markets The Commission foresees little, if any, negative impact from the Final Order on the efficiency, competitiveness, and financial integrity of markets regulated under the CEA.

Further, as an exercise of the Commission's CEA section 4 c authority to provide legal certainty for novel instruments as Congress intended, the Final Order affords entities who partake of the exemption delineated therein transactional flexibility that the Commission understands to be valuable to their ability to efficiently deploy their limited resources.

Price Discovery The Commission does not believe that the Final Order will materially impair price discovery in non-exempt markets subject to the Commission's jurisdiction. Sound Risk Management Practices The Commission believes that the Final Order will promote the ability of RTOs, ISOs, and their market participants to manage the operational risks posed by unique electric energy market characteristics, including the non-storable nature of electric energy and demand that can and frequently does fluctuate dramatically within a short time-span.

As discussed above, the Commission understands that the Covered Transactions are an important tool facilitating the ability of the Requesting Parties to efficiently manage operational risk in fulfillment of their public service mission to provide affordable, reliable electric energy. Other Public Interest Considerations In exercising its sections 4 c 1 and 4 c 6 C exemptive authority in the Final Order, the Commission is acting to promote the broader public interest by facilitating the supply of affordable, reliable electric energy, as contemplated by Congress.

Order Upon due consideration and consistent with the determinations set forth above, the Commission hereby issues the following Order: Exempts, subject to the conditions and limitations specified herein, the execution of the electric energy-related agreements, contracts, and transactions that are specified in paragraph 2 of this Order and any person or class of persons offering, entering into, rendering advice, or rendering other services with respect thereto, from all provisions of the CEA, except, in each case, the Commission's general anti-fraud and anti-manipulation authority, and scienter-based prohibitions, under CEA sections 2 a 1 B4 d4b, 4c b4o, 4s h 1 A4s h 4 A6 c6 d6 e6c, 6d, 8, 9, and 13 and any implementing regulations promulgated under these sections including, but not limited to, Commission regulations This exemption applies only to agreements, contracts, and transactions that satisfy each of the following requirements: The agreement, contract, or transaction is for the purchase and sale of one of the following electric energy-related products: Each party to the agreement, contract or transaction is: The agreement, contract, or transaction is offered or sold pursuant to a Requesting Party's Tariff and that Tariff has been approved or permitted to take effect by: Subject to the conditions contained in the Order, the Order applies to all Requesting Parties with respect to the transactions described in paragraph 2 of this Order.

The exemption provided by this Order is expressly conditioned upon the following: Notification of requests for information: With respect to each Requesting Party, neither the Tariffs nor any other governing documents of the particular RTO or ISO pursuant to whose Tariff the agreement, contract or transaction is to be offered or sold, shall include any requirement that the RTO or ISO notify its members prior to providing information to the Commission in response to a subpoena or other request for information or documentation.

The following definitions shall apply for purposes of this Order: In each case, to be eligible for the exemption, the aggregate cleared volume of all such transactions for any period of time shall be limited to the physical capability of the electric energy transmission system operated by a Requesting Party for that period of time.

Effectiveness of the Exemption. For a Requesting Party subject to the jurisdiction of FERC, the exemption set forth in this Order is effective upon satisfaction of all of the following: For ERCOT, which is subject to the jurisdiction of PUCT, the exemption set forth in this Order is effective upon satisfaction of all of the following: The Commission hereby delegates, until such time as the Commission orders otherwise, to the Director of the Division of Clearing and Risk and to such members of the Division's staff acting under his or her direction as he or she may designate, in consultation with the General Counsel or such members of the General Counsel's staff acting under his or her direction as he or she may designate, the authority to accept or reject any legal memorandum or opinion that is required by sections 6 a 1 and 6 b 1 of this Order.

Further, The Commission hereby delegates to the Director of the Division of Market Oversight and to such members of the Division's staff acting under his or her direction as he or she may designate, in consultation with the General Counsel or such members of the General Counsel's staff acting under his or her direction as he or she may designate, the authority to request information from Requesting Parties pursuant to sections 4 a 1 and 4 a 2 of this Order.

Further, the Commission reserves the right, in its discretion, to revisit any of the terms and conditions of the relief provided herein, including but not limited to, making a determination that certain entities and transactions described herein should be subject to the Commission's full jurisdiction, and to condition, suspend, terminate or otherwise modify or restrict the exemption granted in this Order, as appropriate, upon its own motion.

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 28,by the Commission. Kirkpatrick, Deputy Secretary of the Commission. Appendices to Final Order in Response to a Petition From Certain Independent System Operators and Regional Transmission Organizations To Exempt Specified Transactions Authorized by a Tariff or Protocol Approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or the Public Utility Commission of Texas From Certain Provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act Pursuant to the Authority Provided in Section 4 c 6 of the Act--Commission Voting Summary and Statement of the Chairman Appendix Commission Voting Summary On this matter, Chairman Gensler and Commissioners Sommers, Chilton, O'Malia and Wetjen voted in the affirmative.

No Commissioner voted in the negative. Appendix Statement of Chairman Gary Gensler I support the final order regarding specified electric energy- related transactions entered into on markets administered by regional transmission organizations RTOs or independent system operators ISOs.

Congress authorized that these transactions be exempt from certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act as they are subject to extensive regulatory oversight by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FERC or, in one instance, the Public Utility Commission of Texas PUCT. This final order responds to a petition filed by a group of RTOs and ISOs and has benefitted from public input.

These entities were established for the purpose of providing affordable, reliable electric energy to consumers within their geographic region. In addition, these markets administered by RTOs and ISOs are central to FERC and PUCT's regulatory missions to oversee wholesale sales and transmission of electric energy.

The scope of the final order is carefully tailored to four categories of transactions--financial transmission rights; energy transactions; forward capacity transactions; and reserve or regulation transactions, which are offered or entered into a market administered by one of the requesting RTOs or ISOs. This exemption is conditioned on, among other things, each of these transactions being inextricably linked to the physical delivery of electric energy.

Dodd-Frank Act Submit a Comment Forms and Submissions. Resources Budget and Performance Educational Material Privacy Policy Web Policy FOIA EEO Statement No Fear Act Inspector General USA.

Actions CFTC Regulations Commodity Exchange Act Public Comments Tips and Complaints Industry Filings Whistleblower. CFTC Headquarters Three Lafayette Centre 21st Street, NW Washington, DC