Skip Navigation
 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission



Enforcement Civil Penalties All Civil Penalty Actions

 
Text Size small medium large
All Civil Penalty Actions – 2016


To access the significant orders and federal district court papers related to all matters that have proceeded to Orders to Show Cause, see the Orders to Show Cause Proceedings page.

Subject(s) of Investigation and Order Sanctions, including Civil Penalties, Disgorgement, and Compliance Measures Description of Findings of Violations
ETRACOM LLC and Michael Rosenberg, Docket No. IN16-2-000, Order to Show Cause and Notice of Proposed Penalty, 153 FERC ∂ 61,314 (December 16, 2015); Order Assessing Penalties, 155 FERC ∂ 61,284 (June 17, 2016) Civil penalties and disgorgement as follows, respectively: $315,072 plus interest against ETRACOM; $2,400,000 civil penalty against ETRACOM; $100,000 civil penalty against Rosenberg. Following an Order to Show Cause proceeding, the Commission issued an Order Assessing Civil Penalties against ETRACOM and Rosenberg. The order found that ETRACOM and Rosenberg violated section 1c.2 of the Commissionís regulations and section 222 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), by submitting virtual supply transactions at the New Melones intertie (New Melones) at the border of the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) wholesale electric market in order to affect power prices and economically benefit ETRACOMís Congestion Revenue Rights (CRRs) sourced at that location. ETRACOM and Rosenberg elected the procedures of FPA section 31(d)(3), in which the Commission assessed a penalty and if the disgorgement and civil penalties are not paid within 60 days, the Commission will institute an action in federal district court to affirm the assessment.
Richard Silkman, Order to Show Cause and Notice of Proposed Penalty, 140 FERC ∂ 61,033 PDF (July 17, 2012); Order Assessing Penalties, 144 FERC ∂ 61,164 PDF (August 29, 2013); Petition for an Order Affirming Order Assessing Civil Penalty PDF, Case No. 1:13-cv-13054-DPW (December 2, 2013); Order Denying Motion to Dismiss PDF, Case No. 1:13-cv-13054-DPW (April 11, 2016) $1,250,000 Civil Penalty. The Commission issued an Order Assessing Civil Penalty finding a violation of the Anti-Manipulation Rule, 18 C.F.R. 1c.2, for fraudulently inflating baseline energy consumption in the New England ISO market in order to later claim greater energy curtailments, and payments, in the Day-Ahead Load Response Program (demand response). Silkman elected the procedures of FPA section 31(d)(3), in which the Commission assessed a penalty and instituted an action on December 2, 2013, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts to affirm and enforce its Order Assessing Civil Penalty. On April 11, 2016, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied CES and Silkmanís Motion to Dismiss and transferred the litigation to the United States District Court for the District of Maine.
Competitive Energy Services, LLC, Order to Show Cause and Notice of Proposed Penalty, 140 FERC ∂ 61,032 PDF (July 17, 2012); Order Assessing Penalties, 144 FERC ∂ 61,163 PDF (August 29, 2013); Petition for an Order Affirming Order Assessing Civil Penalty PDF, Case No. 1:13-cv-13054-DPW (December 2, 2013); Order Denying Motion to Dismiss PDF, Case No. 1:13-cv-13054-DPW (April 11, 2016) $7,500,000 Civil Penalty; $166,841.13 Disgorgement. The Commission issued an Order Assessing Civil Penalty finding a violation of the Anti-Manipulation Rule, 18 C.F.R. 1c.2, for fraudulently inflating baseline energy consumption in the New England ISO market in order to later claim greater energy curtailments, and payments, in the Day-Ahead Load Response Program (demand response). CES elected the procedures of FPA section 31(d)(3), in which the Commission assessed a penalty and instituted an action on December 2, 2013, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts to affirm and enforce its Order Assessing Civil Penalty. On April 11, 2016, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied CES and Silkmanís Motion to Dismiss and transferred the litigation to the United States District Court for the District of Maine.
Lincoln Paper and Tissue, LLC, Docket No. IN12-10-000, Order to Show Cause, 140 FERC ∂ 61,031 PDF (July 17, 2012); Order Assessing Civil Penalties, 144 FERC ∂ 61,162 PDF (August 29, 2013); Petition for Order to Affirm and Enforce Civil Penalty Order, Case No. 1:13-cv-13056-DPW PDF(December 2, 2013); Order Denying Motion to Dismiss, Case No. 1:13-cv-13056-DPW PDF (April 11, 2016); Order Approving Stipulation and Consent Agreement, 155 FERC ∂ 61,228 PDF (June 1, 2016) Disgorgement and civil penalties as follows, respectively: $379,016.03, in disgorgement. $5,000,000 in civil penalties. During an Order to Show Cause proceeding before the Commission, Lincoln elected the procedures of FPA section 31(d)(3), in which the Commission assessed a penalty and on December 2, 2013, filed a Petition in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts to affirm and enforce its Order Assessing Civil Penalty. On April 11, 2016, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied Lincolnís Motion to Dismiss and transferred the Litigation to the United States District Court for the District of Maine. On September 28, 2015, Lincoln filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maine. On June 1, 2016, the Commission approved a Stipulation and Consent Agreement (Agreement) between the Office of Enforcement (Enforcement) and Lincoln Paper and Tissue, LLC (Lincoln). Pending bankruptcy court approval, the Agreement resolves the investigation into whether Lincoln engaged in fraudulent conduct in its participation in ISO-New England, Inc.ís (ISO-NE) Day-Ahead Load Response Program (DALRP), thereby violating the Commissionís Anti-Manipulation Rule, 18 C.F.R. ß 1c.2 and section 222 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), and the subsequent Order Assessing Civil Penalties that resulted from the underlying Order to Show Cause proceeding relating to Enforcementís investigation. Lincoln neither admits nor denies the allegations. On June 13, 2016, a motion for approval of the settlement was filed in the bankruptcy court. If the bankruptcy court approves the Agreement, the Commission will file a motion to dismiss the civil penalty petition against Lincoln pending in Maine.
Coaltrain Energy, L.P., Peter Jones, Shawn Sheehan, Robert Jones, Jeff Miller, Jack Wells, and Adam Hughes, Docket No. IN16-4-000, Order to Show Cause and Notice of Proposed Penalty, 154 FERC ∂ 61,002 PDF (January 6, 2016), Order Assessing Penalties, 155 FERC ∂ 61,204 PDF (May 27, 2016) Disgorgement and civil penalties as follows, respectively: $4,121,894 plus interest in disgorgement against Coaltrain, Peter Jones, and Shawn Sheehan, jointly and severally. Coaltrain $26,000,000 (jointly and severally with Peter Jones and Shawn Sheehan); Peter Jones and Shawn Sheehan $5,000,000 each; Robert Jones $1,000,000; and Jeff Miller and Jack Wells $500,000 each in civil penalties. Following an Order to Show Cause proceeding, the Commission issued an Order Assessing Civil Penalties against Coaltrain Energy, L.P., Peter Jones, Shawn Sheehan, Robert Jones, Jeff Miller, Jack Wells. The order found that Coaltrain, and the named individuals violated section 1c.2 of the Commissionís regulations and section 222 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), by engaging in fraudulent Up To Congestion (UTC) transactions in PJM Interconnection L.L.C.ís energy markets. The Commission declined to find Adam Hughes to have individually violated section 1c.2. The order further found that Coaltrain Energy, L.P. violated 18 C.F.R. ß 35.41(b) of the Commissionís rules through false and misleading statements and material omissions relating to the existence of documents responsive to data requests and relating to the trading conduct at issue in the matter. Finally, the order assessed disgorgement and civil penalties as outlined for the violations. Coaltrain and the other named respondents elected the procedures of FPA section 31(d)(3), in which the Commission assessed a penalty and if the disgorgement and civil penalties are not paid within 60 days, the Commission will institute an action in federal district court to affirm the assessment.
Berkshire Power Company LLC and Power Plant Management Services LLC, Docket No. IN16-3-000, Order Approving Stipulation and Consent Agreement, 154 FERC ∂ 61,259 PDF (March 30, 2016) Disgorgement and civil penalties as follows, respectively: $1,012,563, plus interest in disgorgement against Berkshire. $2,000,000 in civil penalties, jointly and severally, against Berkshire and Power Plant Management, and an additional separate civil penalty in the amount of $30,000 against Berkshire for violations of the Reliability Standards. The Commission issued an Order approving a Stipulation and Consent Agreement (Agreement) between the Office of Enforcement (Enforcement), Berkshire Power Company LLC (Berkshire), and Power Plant Management Services LLC (PPMS). The Agreement resolves the investigation conducted by Enforcement into whether Berkshire and PPMS violated section 222 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) and the Commissionís Anti-Manipulation Rule, 18 C.F.R. ß 1c.1 (2015), and whether Berkshire separately violated the Market Behavior Rules, 18 C.F.R. ß 35.41(a) and (b), the ISO-NE Tariff, and certain Commission-Approved Reliability Standards, by concealing plant maintenance and associated outages from ISO-New England, Inc. (ISO-NE) between January 1, 2008 and March 30, 2011. Berkshire and PPMS admit the violations and agree, in addition to payment of the civil penalties and disgorgement, to implement measures designed to improve compliance with applicable Commission regulations and jurisdictional tariffs.

Total Civil Penalties assessed for all years 2007 to present: $644,959,786.00.

Total Civil Penalties does not include the $30,000,000 assessed in Hunter and overturned on jurisdictional grounds by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Also does not include penalties proposed or assessed in the following currently pending matters: $28,000,000 in BP America Inc., et al.; $453,000,000 in Barclays Bank PLC, et al.; $5,000,000 assessed in Lincoln Paper and Tissue, LLC; $7,500,000 assessed in Competitive Energy Services, LLC; $1,250,000 assessed in Richard Silkman; $16,800,000 assessed in Powhatan Energy Fund LLC; $10,080,000 assessed in CU Fund Inc.; $1,920,000 assessed in HEEP Fund Inc.; or $1,000,000 assessed in Houlian Chen for his acts on behalf of Powhatan Energy Fund; $5,000,000 (Maxim corporate entities) and $50,000 (Kyle Mitton) assessed in Maxim Power Corporation, et al.; $14 million against City Power Marketing, LLC and $1 million against K. Stephen Tsingas; $26 million against Coaltrain Energy, L.P.; $5 million each against Peter Jones and Shawn Sheehan; $1 million against Robert Jones; and $500,000 each against Jeff Miller and Jack Wells assessed in Coaltrain Energy, L.P., et al.

Total Disgorgement ordered for all years 2007 to present: $302,969,089.00.

Total Disgorgement does not include amounts ordered in the following currently pending matters: $34,900,000 ordered in Barclays Bank PLC, et al.; $379.016 ordered in Lincoln Paper and Tissue, LLC; $166,841 ordered in Competitive Energy Services, LLC; $800,000 proposed in BP America Inc., et al.; $3,465,108 assessed in Powhatan Energy Fund LLC; $1,080,576 assessed in CU Fund Inc.; $173,100 assessed in HEEP Fund, Inc.; $1,278,358 assessed in City Power Marketing, et al.; or $4,121,894 plus interest assessed in Coaltrain Energy, L.P., et al.