PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Power.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 11, 1996
Electric Power Competition and Consumer Choice Act of 1996 - Declares the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 inapplicable to an electric utility company or any holding company of such utility if any subsidiary, associate, or affiliate of either the electric utility or the holding company has received a Certification of Competition under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) from the appropriate State regulatory authority. Amends PURPA to codify standards of competition for electric utilities. Sets forth a voluntary State certification program under which a State regulatory authority may elect to issue to a regulated electric utility over which it has ratemaking authority a State certification of compliance with standards and requirements of competition. Instructs the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to establish criteria for State certification in accordance with specified Federal standards of competition, including a retail competition standard and a divestiture standard. Sets forth minimum certification requirements. Provides that upon passage of this Act: (1) no law shall be construed to preempt otherwise applicable State authority to review the prudence of any wholesale or retail cost incurred by a utility; and (2) no Federal statute shall be construed to preempt FERC authority to examine existing affiliate contracts or transactions. (Sec. 4) Amends the Federal Power Act regarding public utility mergers and acquisitions to prohibit acquisition of an interest in a public utility that results in effective control or ownership unless: (1) an arms-length relationship exists between all parties; and (2) FERC has made certain mandatory findings concerning the maintenance of effective competition and substantial electric service cost reductions. Authorizes FERC to establish conditions governing such transactions. (Sec. 5) Amends the Federal Power Act to repeal current conflict of jurisdiction requirements and prohibit any public utility or affiliate to use its ownership or control of any resource to create or maintain a situation inconsistent with effective competition in any market in which competition would benefit consumers. Delineates parameters within which FERC shall order a public utility to desist from any violation of such prohibition. (Sec. 6) Amends the Federal Power Act to instruct FERC to promulgate rules establishing tariffs applicable in the largest feasible regions within which a single transmission rate schedule is available for use by buyers or sellers of generation. Requires that such tariffs be designed, among other things, to prevent multiple transmission service charges based on the number of transmission owners rather than on actual transmission costs. (Sec. 7) Grants State regulatory bodies and FERC access to the books and records of a public utility, including its affiliates or associates.
People & committees
Rep. Markey, Edward J. [D-MA-7] · D–MA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Power.
Referred to the House Committee on Commerce.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1255)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 21, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.3782 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.3782 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.3782 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.3782 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.