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) | Civil penalties and disgorgement as follows, respectively: $2,400,000 civil penalty against ETRACOM; $100,000 civil penalty against Rosenberg; $315,072 plus interest in disgorgement against ETRACOM. | The Commission issued an Order to Show Cause and Notice of Proposed Penalty proceeding asking ETRACOM and Rosenberg to show why ETRACOM and Rosenberg should not be found to have 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. ETRACOM and Rosenberg have 30 days to respond to the Order to Show Cause. |
| Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC 152 FERC ¶ 61,089 (July 30, 2015) | $350,000 in Civil Penalties. | The Commission approved a settlement resolving findings that between January 1, 2010 and May 1, 2013, Columbia Gas violated Part 4 of its tariff by failing to post the notices of the auctions of its available firm capacity on the public side of its Electronic Bulletin Board (EBB) (Navigates). Columbia Gas admits to the violation. |
| City Power Marketing, LLC and K. Stephen Tsingas, Docket No. IN15-5-000, Order Assessing Civil Penalties, 152 FERC ¶ 61,012 (July 2, 2015) Prior Commission Activity: Order to Show Cause and Notice of Proposed Penalty, 150 FERC ¶ 61,176(March 6, 2015) |
Civil penalties and disgorgement as follows: $1,278,358 in disgorgement jointly and severally against City Power and Tsingas; $14 million civil penalty against City Power; $1 million 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. |
| Houlian Chen Powhatan Energy Fund, LLC HEEP Fund, LLC. CU Fund, Inc., Docket No. IN15-3-000, Order Assessing Civil Penalties, 151 FERC ¶ 61,179 (May 29, 2015) Prior Commission Activity: Order Revising Show Cause Order 149 FERC ¶ 61,263 (December 18, 2014), Order to Show Cause and Notice of Proposed Penalty, 149 FERC ¶ 61,261 (December 17, 2014) |
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 assesses a penalty and, if the penalty is not paid within 60 days, then institutes an action in federal district court to review the assessment. |
| Western Electricity Coordinating Council 151 FERC ¶ 61,175 (May 26, 2015) | $16,000,000, offset by $13,000,000 in Reliability Enhancements; Compliance Monitoring. | The Commission approved a settlement resolving findings under 9 Requirements of 5 Reliability Standards for failures to: establish valid system operating limits (SOLs) and interconnection reliability operating limits (IROLs), identify and prevent potential violations of SOLs and IROLs, be aware of the impact of protection systems, and to alert impacted Balancing Authorities and Transmission Operators regarding potential violations of SOLs and IROLs. |
| 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, Docket No. IN15-4-000, Order Assessing Civil Penalties, 151 FERC ¶ 61,094 (May 1, 2015) Prior Commission Activity: Order to Show Cause and Notice of Proposed Penalty, 150 FERC ¶ 61,068 (February 2, 2015) |
Disgorgement by Maxim Power Corp. of $4,000,000 to ISO-NE. Civil Penalty by Maxim Power Corp. of $4,000,000 to United States Treasury. | The Commission issued an Order Assessing Civil Penalties for violations 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 costly gas. Maxim and the other named corporate respondents including Mitton elected the procedures of FPA section 31(d)(3), in which the Commission assesses a penalty and, if the penalty is not paid within 60 days, then institutes an action in federal district court to review the assessment. |
Quick Links
- Enforcement
- Civil Penalties
- Orders to Show Cause Proceedings
- All Civil Penalty Actions - 2024
- All Civil Penalty Actions - 2023
- All Civil Penalty Actions – 2022
- All Civil Penalty Actions – 2021
- All Civil Penalty Actions – 2020
- All Civil Penalty Actions – 2019
- All Civil Penalty Actions – 2018
- All Civil Penalty Actions – 2017
- All Civil Penalty Actions – 2016
- All Civil Penalty Actions – 2014
- All Civil Penalty Actions – 2013
- All Civil Penalty Actions – 2012
- All Civil Penalty Actions – 2011
- All Civil Penalty Actions – 2010
- All Civil Penalty Actions – 2009
- All Civil Penalty Actions – 2008
- All Civil Penalty Actions – 2007