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

BP America Inc., BP Corporation North America Inc., BP America Production Company, BP Energy Company, Docket Nos. IN13-15-000, IN13-15-001,  IN13-15-002, Order Addressing Arguments Raised on Rehearing, 173 FERC ¶ 61,239 (December 17, 2020)

Prior Commission Activity:

Opinion No. 549, Order on Initial Decision and Rehearing, 
156 FERC ¶ 61,031  (July 11, 2016), Initial Decision, 152 FERC ¶ 63,016 (August 13, 2015), Order Establishing Hearing, 147 FERC ¶ 61,130 (May 15, 2014), BP America Inc., BP Corporation North America Inc., BP America Production Company, BP Energy Company, Docket No. IN13-15-000, Order Staying the Payment Directives of the Order Assessing Civil Penalties, 156 FERC ¶ 61,174  (September 12, 2016)

Civil Penalty in the amount of $20,160,000 against BP America Inc., BP Corporation North America Inc., BP America Production Company, BP Energy Company (BP); disgorgement in the amount of $207,169 against BP. The Commission issued an Order to Show Cause why the company should not be found to have violated the Anti-Manipulation Rule, 18 C.F.R. 1c.1, for sales of natural gas at specific natural gas trading hubs to affect the index price at which related financial instruments settled. The Commission set the matter for hearing before an ALJ. The ALJ’s Initial Decision, reviewable by the Commission, found that BP violated Section 1c.1 of the Commission’s regulations and Section 4A of the Natural Gas Act, and made factual findings respecting the application of the Commission’s Penalty Guidelines. The Commission issued an order affirming the ALJ’s Initial Decision and ordered BP to pay $20,160,000 in civil penalties and disgorge unjust profits in the amount of $207,169. On September 7, 2016, BP filed a Petition for Review of the Order on Initial Decision and Rehearing with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. BP also filed a motion for the Commission to stay the payment directives ordered in the Penalty Assessment and the Commission issued an order on September 12, 2016 granting the motion.  BP then sought rehearing by the Commission of its Order on Initial Decision and Rehearing, which the Commission considered and rejected in an order dated December 17, 2020.

Competitive Energy Services, LLC and Richard Silkman, Docket Nos. IN12-12-000 and IN12-13-000, Order Approving Stipulation and Consent Agreement, 173 FERC ¶ 61,176 (Nov. 25, 2020)

Prior Commission Activity:

Competitive Energy Services, LLC, Docket No. IN12-12-000, Order Assessing Penalties, 144 FERC ¶ 61,163 (August 29, 2013), Order to Show Cause and Notice of Proposed Penalty, 140 FERC ¶ 61,032 (July 17, 2012)

Richard Silkman, Docket No. IN12-13-000, Order Assessing Penalties, 144 FERC ¶ 61,164 (August 29, 2013), Order to Show Cause and Notice of Proposed Penalty, 140 FERC ¶ 61,033 (July 17, 2012) 

Civil Penalty of $708,159 against Competitive Energy Services, LLC, and $600,000 against Richard Silkman, and Disgorgement of $166,841 against Competitive Energy Services, LLC

The Commission issued an Order to Show Cause why Competitive Energy Services, LLC should not be found to have violated the Commission’s Anti-Manipulation Rule, 18 C.F.R. § 1c.2, for planning and helping execute a fraudulent scheme pursuant to which a paper mill inflated 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).  The Commission subsequently approved a settlement resolving the matter.

The Commission issued an Order to Show Cause why Richard Silkman should not be found to have violated the Commission’s Anti-Manipulation Rule, 18 C.F.R. § 1c.2, for planning and helping execute a fraudulent scheme pursuant to which a paper mill inflated 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).  The Commission subsequently approved a settlement resolving the matter.

High Desert Power Project, LLC and Middle River Power LLC, Docket No. IN20-6-000, Order Approving Stipulation and Consent Agreement, 173 FERC ¶ 61,087 (Oct. 23, 2020)

Civil Penalty of $390,000 and disgorgement of $176,000 plus interest.

On October 23, 2020, the Commission approved a Stipulation and Consent Agreement (Agreement) between FERC’s Office of Enforcement, High Desert Power Project, LLC (HDPP), and Middle River Power LLC (MRP) (collectively High Desert).  The Order resolved Enforcement’s investigation into whether High Desert took advantage of a California Independent System Operator (CAISO) software error and submitted Residual Unit Commitment (RUC) offers into CAISO’s day-ahead market in a manner that sought to maximize any Bid Cost Recovery (BCR) that might be awarded, in violation of section 222 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) and the Commission’s Anti-Manipulation Rule, 18 C.F.R. § 1c.2 (2020).  High Desert admits to the facts set forth in the Agreement, but neither admits nor denies the alleged violation.   High Desert also agrees to submit annual compliance reports.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. IN20-3-000, Order Approving Stipulation and Consent Agreement, 170 FERC ¶ 61,008 (Jan. 10, 2020) Civil Penalty of $32,500, and disgorgement and interest in the total amount of $116,480.45. On January 10, 2020, the Commission approved a Stipulation and Consent Agreement (Agreement) between FERC’s Office of Enforcement (Enforcement) and Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon). In the order the Commission found the settlement is in the public interest because the Agreement resolves on fair and equitable terms Enforcement’s investigation under Part 1b of the Commission’s regulations, 18 C.F.R. Part 1b (2019), into whether Exelon failed to correct erroneous data transmitted to ISO New England Inc. regarding the type and quantity of fuel used to start up the company’s Mystic 7 generating unit located outside of Boston, MA. Exelon stipulates to the facts set forth in Section II of the Agreement and admits the alleged violations.
Emera Energy Incorporated, Docket No. IN20-2-000, Order Approving Stipulation and Consent Agreement, 170 FERC ¶ 61,007 (Jan. 10, 2020) Civil Penalty of $5,000, and disgorgement and interest in the total amount of $16,122.19. On January 10, 2020, the Commission approved a Stipulation and Consent Agreement (Agreement) between FERC’s Office of Enforcement (Enforcement) and Emera Energy Incorporated (Emera Energy). In the order the Commission found the settlement is in the public interest because the Agreement resolves on fair and equitable terms Enforcement’s investigation under Part 1b of the Commission’s regulations, 18 C.F.R. Part 1b (2019), into whether Emera Energy supported Fuel Price Adjustment Requests (FPA Requests) using fuel costs that did not reflect an arm’s length fuel purchase transaction contrary to ISO-NE Tariff Market Rule 1, Appendix A § III.A.3.4(b). Emera Energy stipulates to the facts set forth in Section II of the Agreement, but neither admits nor denies the alleged violations.

 

This page was last updated on January 21, 2021