This page provides significant orders and federal district court papers related to all matters that have proceeded to Orders to Show Cause. Matters are listed in alphabetical order.

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

A

Subject(s) of Investigation Sanctions Imposed or Pending Issues and Orders
Amaranth Advisors, LLC, et al. $7,500,000 Civil Penalty. The Commission issued an Order to Show Cause why it should not assess a penalty for violation of Commission’s Anti-Manipulation Rule, 18 C.F.R. § 1c.1, for trading natural gas futures contracts on the NYMEX to affect the index price at which related derivative and swap positions settled.  The Commission subsequently approved a settlement resolving the matter. Order to Show Cause and Notice of Proposed Penalty, 120 FERC ¶ 61,085  (July 26, 2007) Order Approving Uncontested Settlement, 128 FERC ¶ 61,154 (Aug. 12, 2009)

B   Top of Page

Subject(s) of Investigation Sanctions Imposed or Pending Issues and Orders
Barclays Bank PLC, et al. and FERC v. Barclays Bank PLC et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-02093-TLN-DAD (E.D. Cal.) Civil penalties and disgorgement as follows: $70,000,000 in civil penalties to the U.S. Treasury against Barclays. $35,000,000 in disgorgement by Barclays. The Commission issued an Order Assessing Civil Penalties finding a violation of the Commission’s Anti-Manipulation Rule, 18 C.F.R. 1c.2 (2017), for trading electricity in the western United States to affect the index price at which related financial instruments settled.  Barclays and the individual traders elected the procedures of FPA section 31(d) (3), in which the Commission assessed a penalty and instituted an action in federal district court to affirm the assessment. On October 11 and 12, 2017, the Commission and Barclays and the individual traders convened for a settlement conference, at which time the parties reached a settlement agreement in principal. The Commission issued an Order approving a Stipulation and Consent Agreement (Agreement) between the Office of Enforcement (Enforcement) and Barclays Bank PLC (Barclays), Daniel Brin, Scott Connelly, and Karen Levine (together, Defendants) finding that the Agreement is in the public interest and resolves on fair and equitable terms: (a) the Commission’s claims against Defendants for violations of section 222 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) and the Commission’s Anti-Manipulation Rule, 18 C.F.R. § lc (2017), and (b) the Commission’s action captioned FERC v. Barclays Bank PLC et al., No. 2:13-cv-02093-TLN-DB (E.D. Cal.). On December 11, 2017, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California issued a minute order dismissing the Commission’s action with prejudice. Order to Show Cause and Notice of Proposed Penalty, 141 FERC ¶ 61,084 (October 31, 2012) Order Assessing Civil Penalties, 144 FERC ¶ 61,041 (July 16, 2013) Petition for an Order Affirming Order Assessing Civil Penalty (October 9, 2013) Order on Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss and Transfer (May 20, 2015) Order Approving Stipulation and Consent Agreement, 161 FERC ¶ 61,147 (November 7, 2017)
Boyce Hydro Power LLC, Docket No. P-10809-050 Civil Penalty of $15,000,000.

The Commission issued an Order to Show Cause and Proposed Penalty Assessing Civil Penalties on December 9, 2020, against Boyce Hydro Power LLC (Boyce Hydro) for violating numerous FERC staff orders and license provisions addressing safety of project facilities and surrounding communities following catastrophic failures of two of its dams.  Specifically, Boyce Hydro failed to begin a required forensic study of the dam failures and ignored staff’s orders to conduct engineering safety studies and to file certain required reports to ensure homes and other buildings surrounding the Boyce Projects were not at risk of further damage. On April 15, 2021, the Commission assessed a penalty of $15 million against Boyce Hydro.

Order to Show Cause and Notice of Proposed Penalty, 173 FERC ¶ 61,217 (December 9, 2020); Order Assessing Penalty, 175 FERC ¶ 61,049 (April 15, 2021).
BP America Inc., et al.,
IN13-15-000
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. Alleged violation of the Commission’s 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. Order to Show Cause and Notice of Proposed Penalty, 144 FERC ¶ 61,100 (Aug. 5, 2013) Order Establishing Hearing, 147 FERC ¶ 61,130 (May 15, 2014) Initial Decision, 152 FERC ¶ 63,016 (August 13, 2015) Opinion No. 549, Order on Initial Decision and Rehearing, 156 FERC ¶ 61,031 (July 11, 2016) Order Staying the Payment Directives of the Order Assessing Civil Penalties, 156 FERC ¶ 61,174 (September 12, 2016) Order Addressing Arguments Raised on Rehearing, 173 FERC ¶ 61,239 (December 17, 2020)


C   Top of Page

Subject(s) of Investigation Sanctions Imposed or Pending Issues and Orders
City Power Marketing, LLC and K. Stephen Tsingas, Docket No. IN15-5-000, and FERC v. City Power Marketing, LLC and K. Stephen Tsingas, Case No. 1:15-cv-01428-JDB (DDC) Civil penalties and disgorgement as follows: $1,300,000 in disgorgement against Tsingas; $9 million civil penalty against City Power; $1,420,000 civil penalty against Tsingas.

The Commission issued an Order Assessing Civil Penalties for alleged violation of the Commission’s Anti-Manipulation Rule, 18 C.F.R. § 1c.2, section 222 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. § 824v(a), and 18 C.F.R. § 35.41(b) by engaging in (i) a scheme to collect Marginal Loss Surplus Allocation payments through large volumes of sham Up To Congestion trades in PJM and (ii) false statements under oath to staff designed to conceal important contemporaneous evidence (instant messages) discussing the trades. City Power and Tsingas elected, as part of their response to the Commission’s Order to Show Cause, the procedures of FPA section 31(d)(3), in which the Commission assessed a penalty and instituted an action in federal district court to affirm the assessment. On September 1, 2015, the Commission filed a Petition for an Order Affirming FERC’s Order Assessing Civil Penalties in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. On November 2, 2015, City Power and Tsingas filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition. On August 10, 2016, the District Court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that the Commission had stated claims both for market manipulation and for violation of 18 C.F.R. 35.41(b). The Court held that the case should proceed as an ordinary civil action, but noted that the case “might be resolved at summary judgment.” On January 5, 2017, upon joint request of the parties, the district court referred the case for mediation. A mediation was subsequently held, at which time, an agreement in principle was reached to settle. The Commission issued an Order approving a Stipulation and Consent Agreement (Agreement) between the Office of Enforcement (Enforcement) and K. Stephen Tsingas and City Power Marketing, LLC finding that the Agreement resolves on fair and equitable terms (a) the Commission’s claims against Tsingas and City Power for violations of section 222 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) and the Commission’s Anti-Manipulation Rule, 18 C.F.R. § lc (2017), and of the Commission’s rule requiring truthful communications with (among others) the Commission, 18 C.F.R. § 35.41(b) (2017); and (b) the Commission’s action captioned FERC v. City Power Marketing, LLC, No. 1:15-cv-01428-JDB (D.D.C.). The Commission will file a new status report with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia advising that the Commission has approved the Agreement.

Order to Show Cause and Notice of Proposed Penalty, 150 FERC ¶ 61,176 (March 6, 2015) Order Assessing Civil Penalties, 152 FERC ¶ 61,012 (July 2, 2015) Petition for an Order Affirming FERC’s Order Assessing Civil Penalties (Case No. 1:15-cv-01428-JDB) (September 1, 2015) Memorandum Opinion and Order Denying City Power and Tsingas Motion to Dismiss (August 10, 2016) Order Approving Stipulation and Consent Agreement,160 FERC ¶ 61,013 (August 22, 2017)

Coaltrain Energy, L.P., Peter Jones, Shawn Sheehan, Robert Jones, Jeff Miller, Jack Wells, Docket No. IN16-4-000 and 2:16-cv-732 (S.D. Ohio) 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 Commission’s 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.’s 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. § 35.41(b) of the Commission’s 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 assesses a penalty and if the disgorgement and civil penalties are not paid within 60 days, the Commission institutes an action in federal district court to affirm the assessment. On July 27, 2016, the Commission filed a Petition for an Order Affirming the Order Assessing Civil Penalties in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Order to Show Cause and Notice of Proposed Penalty, 154 FERC ¶ 61,002 (January 6, 2016) Order Assessing Penalties, 155 FERC ¶ 61,204 (May 27, 2016) Petition for an Order Affirming Order Assessing Civil Penalty (July 27, 2016)
Competitive Energy Services, LLC and Richard Silkman and FERC v. Silkman et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-13054 (D. Mass) $7,500,000 Civil Penalty, CES; $166,841.13 Disgorgement, CES; $1,250,000 Civil Penalty, Silkman. The Commission issued an Order Assessing Civil Penalty finding a violation of the Commission’s 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 and Silkman each 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 Silkman’s Motion to Dismiss and transferred the litigation to the United States District Court for the District of Maine. Order to Show Cause and Notice of Proposed Penalty (CES), 140 FERC ¶ 61,032 (July 17, 2012) Order to Show Cause and Notice of Proposed Penalty (Silkman), 140 FERC ¶ 61,033 (July 17, 2012) Order Assessing Civil Penalty (CES), 144 FERC ¶ 61,163 (August 29, 2013) Order Assessing Civil Penalty (Silkman), 144 FERC ¶ 61,164 (Aug. 29, 2013) Petition for an Order Affirming Order Assessing Civil Penalty , Case No. 1:13-cv-13054-DPW (December 2, 2013) Order Denying Motion to Dismiss , Case No. 1:13-cv-13054-DPW (April 11, 2016)

D   Top of Page

 

Subject(s) of Investigation Sanctions Imposed or Pending Issues and Orders
Deutsche Bank Energy Trading, LLC $1,500,000 Civil Penalty; $172,645 Disgorgement; Compliance Enhancements; Compliance Monitoring. The Commission issued an Order to Show Cause why it should not assess a penalty for violation of the Commission’s Anti-Manipulation Rule, 18 C.F.R. 1c.2, for trading electricity exports in the California ISO market to affect the value of related congestion revenue rights in that market; and violation of 18 C.F.R. § 35.41(b) for submission of false information to the ISO by improperly designating transactions in contravention to the tariff definitions. The Commission subsequently approved a settlement resolving the matter. Order to Show Cause and Notice of Proposed Penalty, 140 FERC ¶ 61,178 (Sept. 5, 2012) Order Approving Stipulation and Consent Agreement, 142 FERC ¶ 61,056 (Jan. 22, 2013)

E   Top of Page

Subject(s) of Investigation Sanctions Imposed or Pending Issues and Orders
Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., et al. $5,000,000 Civil Penalty; $25,000,000 Disgorgement.

The Commission issued an Order to Show Cause why it should not assess a penalty for violation of Commission’s former anti-manipulation rule, 18 C.F.R. § 284.403(a) (2005), for sales of natural gas at specific natural gas trading hubs to affect the price at which related financial instruments settled.  The Commission subsequently approved a settlement resolving the matter.

Order to Show Cause and Notice of Proposed Penalties, 120 FERC ¶ 61,086 (July 26, 2007) Order Approving Uncontested Settlement, 128 FERC ¶ 61,269 (Sept. 21, 2009)

ETRACOM LLC and Michael Rosenberg, Docket No. IN16-2-000 and 2:16-CV-01945 (E.D. Cal.) Civil penalties and disgorgement as follows: $1,500,508.28 in civil penalties to the U.S. Treasury against ETRACOM LLC. $315,072 in disgorgement, plus $84,419.72 in interest, by ETRACOM. Following an Order to Show Cause proceeding, the Commission issued an Order Assessing Civil Penalties against ETRACOM LLC (ETRACOM) and Michael Rosenberg (together, Respondents) finding that Respondents violated section 1c.2 of the Commission’s 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 ETRACOM’s Congestion Revenue Rights (CRRs) sourced at that location. Respondents elected the procedures of FPA section 31(d)(3), in which the Commission assesses a penalty and if the disgorgement and civil penalties are not paid within 60 days, the Commission institutes an action in federal district court to affirm the assessment. On August 17, 2016, the Commission filed a Petition for an Order Affirming the Order Assessing Civil Penalties in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. Subsequently, the Commission and Respondents convened for a settlement conference, at which time the parties reached a settlement agreement in principal. On April 10, 2018, the Commission issued an Order Approving a Stipulation and Consent Agreement (Agreement) between the Office of Enforcement (Enforcement) and Respondents finding that the Agreement is in the public interest and resolves on fair and equitable terms: (a) the Commission’s claims against Respondents for violations of section 222 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) and the Commission’s Anti-Manipulation Rule, 18 C.F.R. § lc.2 (2017), and (b) the Commission’s action captioned FERC v. ETRACOM LLC, No. 2:16-CV-01945-SB (E.D. Cal.). ETRACOM will also develop and implement a compliance program and provide Enforcement annual compliance reports for a period of two years. 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) Petition for an Order Affirming Order Assessing Civil Penalty (August 17, 2016) Order Approving a Stipulation and Consent Agreement, 163 FERC ¶ 61,022 (April 10, 2018)

F   Top of Page

 

Subject(s) of Investigation Sanctions Imposed or Pending Issues and Orders
Footprint Power LLC and Footprint Power Salem Harbor Operations LLC, Docket No. IN18-7-000, None.

The Commission issued an Order to Show Cause directing Footprint Power LLC and Footprint Power Salem Harbor Operations LLC (Respondents) to show the Commission why they should not be found to have violated (i) the Transmission, Markets and Services Tariff of ISO-New England, Inc. (ISO-NE), Market Rule 1, §§ III.1.7.20(b) and (f), III.1.10.1A(d), and III.13.6.1.1.2, and (ii) 18 C.F.R. §§ 35.41(a) and (b) (2017) by submitting what the Office of Enforcement has concluded were false and misleading supply offers and false or misleading and/or omitting material information about Footprint’s capacity resource—Unit 4 of Footprint’s multi-unit Salem Harbor Power Plant in Salem, Massachusetts and by failing to report the fuel status and related operational status of the capacity resource in communications to ISO-NE in June and July of 2013. The Commission considered filings made in the order to show cause proceeding, which included an Answer and Amended Answer to the order to show cause by Footprint, and a reply to Footprint’s Answer by Office of Enforcement Litigation Staff (OE Staff). OE Staff, in their Reply, acknowledged a new defense presented by Footprint in its Answer. OE Staff found merit in the new defense and recommended to the Commission that the order to show cause be vacated and no penalties be assessed against Footprint. The Commission agreed with OE Staff’s assessment and recommendation. On February 25, 2019, the Commission issued an order terminating the order to show cause proceeding. No penalties were assessed against Footprint. 

The Commission agreed with OE Staff’s assessment and recommendation. On February 25, 2019, the Commission issued an order terminating the order to show cause proceeding. No penalties were assessed against Footprint. Order to Show Cause and Notice of Proposed Penalty, 163 FERC ¶ 61,198 (Jun. 18, 2018) Order Terminating Order to Show Cause Proceeding, 166 FERC ¶ 61,150 (Feb. 25, 2019)

G   Top of Page

Subject(s) of Investigation Sanctions Imposed or Pending Issues and Orders

GreenHat Energy, LLC: Estate of Andrew Kittell; John Bartholomew, and Kevin Ziegenhorn, Docket No. IN18-9, Order to Show Cause, 175 FERC ¶ 61,138 (May 20, 2021)

Civil Penalty of $179,000,000 against GreenHat Energy, LLC; civil penalties of $25,000 against John Bartholomew and against Kevin Ziegenhorn; disgorgement of $13,072,428, jointly and severally against the Estate of Andrew Kittell and the other three respondents. 

The Commission issued an Order to Show Cause to GreenHat Energy, LLC, John Bartholomew, Kevin Ziegenhorn, and the Estate of Andrew Kittell directing them to explain why they should not be assessed penalties and required to pay disgorgement for violating Section 222 of the Federal Power Act, the Commission’s Anti-Manipulation Rule, and PJM’s Tariff and Operating Agreement. 

OE staff alleged in the attached Staff Report that between June 2015 and June 2018, GreenHat engaged in a manipulative scheme in PJM’s Financial Transmission Rights (FTR) market.  OE staff found that GreenHat built up an enormous portfolio of FTRs by selecting FTRs based not on market fundamentals but simply on what FTRs it could acquire while minimizing collateral obligations.  When GreenHat defaulted on its portfolio in June 2018, it had on deposit with PJM less than $600,000, which amounted to only 1/368 as much collateral per MWh as the average of the other top 10 FTR holders.  Although GreenHat’s default has imposed $179 million in losses on other PJM members, GreenHat’s owners made $13.1 million for themselves by selling “winners” in GreenHat’s portfolio to third parties for immediate cash.  OE staff alleges that when PJM called GreenHat in 2017 about a potential collateral call, GreenHat invented a fictitious $62 million debt from Shell Energy to try to persuade PJM to permit GreenHat to continue to trade FTRs.  OE staff alleges that, to increase the profits from its scheme, GreenHat rigged the June 2017 Long Term Auction by crafting its own bids based on inside information about the paths, volumes, and prices that Shell would be offering into the Auction, which GreenHat knew from its contractual dealings with Shell. 

H   Top of Page

Subject(s) of Investigation Sanctions Imposed or Pending Issues and Orders
Houlian Chen
Powhatan Energy Fund, LLC
HEEP Fund, LLC, 
CU Fund, Inc. and FERC v. Powhatan Energy Fund, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-0452 (E.D. Va.)
Proposed civil penalties and disgorgement as follows: Powhatan Energy Fund: Civil Penalty of $16,800,000 and Disgorgement of $3,465,108 in unjust profits; CU Fund: Civil Penalty of $10,080,000 and Disgorgement of $1,080,576 in unjust profits; HEEP Fund: Civil Penalty of $1,920,000 and Disgorgement of $173,100 in unjust profits; Houlian Chen: Civil Penalty of $500,000 for his acts on behalf of Powhatan Energy Fund and HEEP Fund and $500,000 for his acts on behalf of CU Fund.

The Commission issued an Order Assessing Civil Penalties finding a violation of the section 222 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. § 824v, and the Commission’s Anti-Manipulation Rule, 18 C.F.R. § 1c.2, by engaging in fraudulent Up To Congestion (UTC) transactions in order to collect Marginal Loss Surplus Allocation (MLSA) payments in PJM Interconnection L.L.C.’s energy markets. Chen and the other named respondents elected the procedures of FPA section 31(d) (3), in which the Commission assessed a penalty and instituted an action in federal district court to affirm the assessment. A Petition for an Order Affirming FERC’s Order Assessing Civil Penalties has been filed by FERC in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division.

Order to Show Cause and Notice of Proposed Penalty, 149 FERC ¶ 61,261 (Dec. 17, 2014) Order Revising Show Cause Order 149 FERC ¶ 61,263 (Dec. 18, 2014) Notice of De Novo Election (Jan. 12, 2015) Order Assessing Civil Penalties, 151 FERC ¶ 61,179 (May 29, 2015) Petition for an Order Affirming FERC’s Order Assessing Civil Penalties (Case No. 3:15-cv-0452) (July 31, 2015)

Brian Hunter $30,000,000 Civil Penalty, overturned on jurisdictional grounds by the United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. The Commission issued a final Order Assessing Civil Penalties finding, after adjudication before an ALJ, a violation of the Commission’s Anti-Manipulation Rule, 18 C.F.R. § 1c.1, for trading natural gas futures contracts on the NYMEX to affect the index price at which related financial instruments settled. Hunter petitioned pursuant to NGA section 717r(b) for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which granted the petition. Order to Show Cause and Notice of Proposed Penalty, 120 FERC ¶ 61,085 (July 26, 2007) Initial Decision, 130 FERC ¶ 63,004 (Jan. 22, 2010) Order Affirming Initial Decision and Ordering Payment of Civil Penalty, 135 FERC ¶ 61,054  (Apr. 21, 2011) Hunter v. FERC, 711 F.3d 155 (D.C. Cir. 2013)

L   Top of Page

Subject(s) of Investigation Sanctions Imposed or Pending Issues and Orders
Lincoln Paper & Tissue, LLC and FERC v. Lincoln Paper & Tissue, LLC, Case No. 1:13-cv-13056-DPW (D. Mass) $5,000,000 Civil Penalty; $379,016.03 Disgorgement.

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 Lincoln’s 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 issued an Order Approving Stipulation and Consent Agreement (Agreement). The Agreement resolves the investigation into whether Lincoln engaged in fraudulent conduct in its participation in ISO-New England, Inc.’s (ISO-NE) Day-Ahead Load Response Program (DALRP), thereby violating the Commission’s Anti-Manipulation Rule, 18 C.F.R. § 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 Enforcement’s investigation. Lincoln neither admits nor denies the allegations. The Commission-approved settlement was filed with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maine, which approved it on July 18, 2016 (In re Lincoln Paper and Tissue, LLC, Case No. 15-10715 (Bankr.D.Me. July 18, 2016) (ECF 637). Consistent with the settlement, the District Court case was closed on August 8, 2016 (FERC v. Lincoln Paper and Tissue, LLC, 1:16-cv-206 (D.Me. Aug. 8, 2016) (ECF 112)).

Order to Show Cause and Notice of Proposed Penalty, 140 FERC ¶ 61,031 (July 17, 2012) Order Assessing Civil Penalty, 144 FERC ¶ 61,162 (Aug. 29, 2013) Petition for an Order Affirming Order Assessing Civil Penalty (Dec. 2, 2013) Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Case No. 1:13-cv-13056-DPW (April 11, 2016) Order Approving Stipulation and Consent Agreement, 155 FERC ¶ 61,228 (June 1, 2016)

 

M   Top of Page

Subject(s) of Investigation Sanctions Imposed or Pending Issues and Orders
Maxim Power Corporation, Maxim Power (USA), Inc., Maxim Power (USA) Holding Company Inc., Pawtucket Power Holding Co., LLC, Pittsfield Generating Company, LP, and Kyle Mitton. and FERC v. Maxim Power Corp., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-30113-MGM (D. Mass.) Disgorgement by Maxim Power Corp. of $4,000,000 to ISO-NE. Civil Penalty by Maxim Power Corp. of $4,000,000.

The Commission issued an Order Assessing Civil Penalties finding a violation of the Commission’s Anti-Manipulation Rule, 18 C.F.R. § 1c.2, section 222 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. § 824v(a), and 18 C.F.R. § 35.41(b) through a scheme to mislead the ISO-New England market monitor to collect make-whole payments for reliability dispatches based on the price of oil when Maxim’s plant actually burned less expensive gas. Maxim and the other named corporate respondents including Mitton elected the procedures of FPA section 31(d) (3), in which the Commission will assess a penalty and institute an action in federal district court to affirm the assessment. The Commission filed a Petition for an Order Affirming Order Assessing Civil Penalty in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on July 1, 2015. In response the respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss on September 4, 2015. On July 21, 2016, the District of Massachusetts court issued an order denying Maxim’s motion to dismiss, holding that the case should proceed as an ordinary civil case (but with limited discovery) and assigning assigned a magistrate judge to commence pre-trial scheduling.

On September 26, 2016, the Commission issued an Order approving a Stipulation and Consent Agreement (Agreement) between the Office of Enforcement (Enforcement) and Maxim Power Corp., Maxim Power (USA), Inc., Maxim Power (USA) Holding Company Inc., Pawtucket Power Holding Company, LLC, and Pittsfield Generating Company, LP (Maxim Respondents), finding that 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, into whether the Maxim Respondents violated section 222 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) and the Commission’s Anti-Manipulation Rule, 18 C.F.R. § 1c and the Commission’s rule concerning communications by entities with market-based rate authority. The Agreement also resolves the Commission’s lawsuit captioned FERC v. Maxim Power Corporation et al., No. 3:15-cv-30113-MGM before the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, upon approval of dismissal by the court. The Commission and Maxim Respondents filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with the District of Massachusetts on October 5, 2016. The District of Massachusetts closed the case on October 6, 2016. The Maxim Respondents neither admit nor deny the alleged violations and agree to pay the disgorgement and civil penalty outlined in the Agreement.

Order to Show Cause and Notice of Proposed Penalty, 150 FERC ¶ 61,068 (Feb. 2, 2015) Notice of De Novo Election (Mar. 4, 2015) Order Assessing Civil Penalties, 151 FERC ¶ 61,094 (May 1, 2015) Petition For an Order Affirming the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s May 1, 2015 Order Assessing Civil Penalties Against Maxim Power Corporation, Maxim Power (USA), Inc., Maxim Power (USA) Holding Company Inc., Pawtucket Power Holding Co., LLC, Pittsfield Generating Company, LP, and Kyle Mitton, (July 1, 2015) Memorandum and Order Regarding Procedures Applicable to FERC’s Petition and Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss (July 21, 2016) Order Approving Stipulation and Consent Agreement, 156 FERC ¶ 61,223 (September 26, 2016) Joint Stipulation of Dismissal (October 5, 2016)

Moussa I. Kourouma d/b/a Quntum Energy LLC $50,000 Civil Penalty, affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. The Commission issued a final order assessing a civil penalty for violation of 18 C.F.R. § 35.41(b) for submission of false information to the Commission in an application for Market Based Rate authority.  Kourouma petitioned pursuant to FPA section 31(d)(2)(B) for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which denied the petition. Order to Show Cause and Notice of Proposed Penalty, 134 FERC ¶ 61,105 (Feb. 14, 2011) Order on Show Cause Response, 135 FERC ¶ 61,245   (June 16, 2011) Kourouma v. FERC, 723 F.3d 274 (D.C. Cir. 2013)


N   Top of Page

Subject(s) of Investigation Sanctions Imposed or Pending Issues and Orders
National Fuel Marketing Company, LLC, et al. $290,000 Civil Penalty; Compliance Monitoring.

The Commission issued an Order to Show Cause why it should not assess a penalty for violation of Commission’s Open Access Transportation requirement that natural gas shippers must have title. The Commission subsequently approved a settlement resolving the matter.

Order to Show Cause and Notice of Proposed Penalty, 126 FERC ¶ 61,042 (Jan. 15, 2009) Order Approving Stipulation and Consent Agreement, 135 FERC ¶ 61,011 (Apr. 7, 2011)


P   Top of Page

Subject(s) of Investigation Sanctions Imposed or Pending Issues and Orders
PacifiCorp $42,000,000 Civil Penalty; Compliance Monitoring.

The Commission issued an Order to Show Cause why it should not assess a penalty for violation of the Federal Power Act and regulations by failing to comply with a Commission-approved reliability standard developed by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC).  Specifically, OE staff found in its investigation that PacifiCorp adopted a facility ratings methodology that required the consideration of clearance measurements consistent with the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC).  Clearance measurements on PacifiCorp’s bulk electric system transmission lines were incorrect under the NESC.  As these clearance measurements were used to calculate PacifiCorp’s facility ratings, PacifiCorp’s facility ratings were thus inconsistent with its facility ratings methodology.  This combination of facts resulted in violations of NERC’s FAC Reliability Standards.  OE staff’s investigation into PacifiCorp’s incorrect clearances began in 2012 after learning of the Wood Hollow wildfire that lasted from June 23 to July 1, 2012 in Sanpete County, Utah and killed one person.  The inadequate clearance involved in the fire was just one example of clearance violations so prevalent that they could be found on a majority of PacifiCorp’s bulk electric system transmission lines.

Order to Show Cause and Notice of Proposed Penalty, 175 FERC ¶ 61,039 (April 15, 2021)

R   Top of Page

Subject(s) of Investigation Sanctions Imposed or Pending Issues and Orders
Rover Pipeline Company, LLC, et al. $20,160,000 Civil Penalty.

The Commission issued an Order to Show Cause why it should not assess a penalty for violating Section 157.5 of the Commission’s regulations by misleading the Commission in its Application for Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity under section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA).  Office of Enforcement (OE) staff alleged that Rover’s application failed to provide full and forthright information and therefore the Commission was not able to properly assess whether the pipeline’s construction was in the public interest.  OE Staff further alleged that Rover’s actions undermined the Commission’s ability to meet its obligations under the National Historic Preservation Act, which requires an attempt to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects on historic properties that may be impacted by any major federal undertaking.  OE staff found that although Rover assured the Commission that it was “committed to a solution that results in no adverse effects” to the Stoneman House, a historic 1843 farmstead located near Rover’s largest proposed compressor station, in fact Rover planned to purchase the house with the intent to demolish it if necessary to move forward with the pipeline’s completion.  OE’s Staff Report alleges that Rover purchased the house in May 2015 and demolished the house in May 2016 while Rover’s application was pending before the Commission.  Rover did not notify the Commission of its purchase, intent to destroy, or its ultimate destruction of the Stoneman House.  The OE Staff Report identified several instances in which Rover misrepresented or omitted material facts in filings as part of its Application and other communication with the Commission.  

Order to Show Cause and Notice of Proposed Penalty, 174 FERC ¶ 61,208 (Mar. 18, 2021).
Rumford Paper Company $10,000,000 Civil Penalty; $2,836,419.08 Disgorgement; Compliance Enhancements; Compliance Monitoring.

The Commission issued an Order Assessing Civil Penalty finding a violation of the Commission’s 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).  The Commission subsequently approved a settlement resolving the matter.

Order to Show Cause and Notice of Proposed Penalty, 140 FERC ¶ 61,030 (July 17, 2012) Order Approving Stipulation and Consent Agreement, 142 FERC ¶ 61,218 (Mar. 22, 2013)

 

S   Top of Page

Subject(s) of Investigation Sanctions Imposed or Pending Issues and Orders
Seminole Energy Services, LLC, et al. $300,000 Civil Penalty; $271,315 Disgorgement; Compliance Monitoring.

The Commission issued an Order to Show Cause why it should not assess a penalty for violation of Commission’s Open Access Transportation requirement prohibiting buy/sell natural gas transactions.  The Commission subsequently approved a settlement resolving the matter.

Order to Show Cause and Notice of Proposed Penalty, 126 FERC ¶ 61,041 (Jan. 15, 2009) Order Approving Stipulation and Consent Agreement, 135 FERC ¶ 61,010 (Apr. 7, 2011)

T   Top of Page

Subject(s) of Investigation Sanctions Imposed or Pending Issues and Orders
Total Gas & Power North America, Inc., Total, S.A., Total Gas & Power, Ltd., Aaron Hall, and Therese Tran f/k/a Nguyen, Docket No. IN12-17-000 Disgorgement and civil penalties as follows, respectively: $9.18 million in disgorgement against TGPNA, Total, and TGPL, jointly and severally; $213,600,000 civil penalty against TGPNA (jointly and severally with Total and TGPL), $1,000,000 civil penalty against Hall (jointly and severally with TGPNA, Total, and TGPL), and $2,000,000 civil penalty against Tran (jointly and severally with TGPNA, Total, and TGPL).

The Commission issued an Order to Show Cause directing TGPNA, Hall, and Tran to show the Commission why they should not be found to have violated section 4A of the Natural Gas Act and section 1c.1 of the Commission’s regulations, by engaging in a scheme to manipulate the price of natural gas at four locations in the southwest United States between June 2009 and June 2012. The Order to Show Cause further directs Total and TGPL to show cause why they should not be held liable for TGPNA’s, Hall’s and Tran’s conduct and held jointly and severally liable for their disgorgement and civil penalties based on Total’s and TGPL’s significant control and authority over TGPNA’s daily operations. Finally, the Order to Show Cause directs the Respondents to show cause why disgorgement and civil penalties should not be assessed for the violations alleged by Enforcement Staff.

Order to Show Cause and Notice of Proposed Penalty, 55 FERC ¶ 61,105 (April 28, 2016)

 

V   Top of Page

Subject(s) of Investigation Sanctions Imposed or Pending Issues and Orders
Vitol Inc. and Federico Corteggiano, Docket No. IN14-4-000 Civil Penalty of $1,515,738 against Vitol, and $1,000,000 against Federico Corteggiano, and Disgorgement of $1,227,143, plus interest, against Vitol Inc.

Following an order to Show Cause proceeding, the Commission issued an Order Assessing Civil Penalties on October 25, 2019, against Vitol and Corteggiano (Respondents) finding that Respondents violated section 1c.2 of the Commission’s regulations and section 222a of the Federal Power Act (FPA) by selling physical power at a loss in the California Independent System Operator’s (CAISO) wholesale electric market in order to eliminate congestion that they expected to cause losses on Vitol’s congestion revenue rights (CRRs). The order assessed disgorgement and civil penalties as outlined. During the Order to Show Cause proceeding, Respondents elected the procedures of FPA section 31(d)(3), in which the Commission assesses a civil penalty and if it is not paid within 60 days, the Commission institutes an action in federal district court to affirm the assessment.

Order to Show Cause and Notice of Proposed Penalty, 168 FERC ¶ 61,013 (July 10, 2019) Order Assessing Civil Penalties, 169 FERC ¶ 61,070 (Oct. 25, 2019)

 

This page was last updated on June 16, 2021