On July 19, 2019, FERC largely denied four complaints filed in May and June of 2015 (“2015 Complaints”) concerning the results of the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.’s (“MISO”) 2015/16 Planning Resource Auction (“2015/16 Auction”) for Local Resource Zone 4 (“Zone 4”).  In relevant part, FERC: (1) found that the results of the 2015/16 Auction for Zone 4 were just and reasonable; and (2) denied requests to hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve issues related to the 2015/16 Auction.  Specifically, FERC found no evidence in the record indicating that certain Auction offers violated the MISO Tariff, and the resulting Zone 4 auction-clearing price was just and reasonable.
Continue Reading

On June 26, 2019, the U.S. District Court of Maine (“District Court”) denied a motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (“First Circuit”) ultimately concerning whether FERC’s enforcement action against Competitive Energy, LLC and its managing member Richard Silkman (collectively, “Respondents”) was time-barred.  The District Court previously denied two motions for summary judgment, relying on the First Circuit’s decision in United States v. Meyer (“Meyer”), which held that a FERC enforcement action accrues when FERC assesses a penalty, and therefore was not barred.  Respondents argued that the District Court should not have followed the First Circuit’s decision in Meyer because two subsequent United States Supreme Court (“Supreme Court”) decisions—Kokesh v. SEC (“Kokesh”) and Gabelli v. SEC (“Gabelli”)—have overruled Meyer.  In denying the motion for interlocutory appeal, the District Court held that whether Meyer continues to be good law does not present a “controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion.” 
Continue Reading

On June 7, 2019, Judge Dennis Montali of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the Northern District of California San Francisco Division found that FERC’s finding that it had concurrent jurisdiction with the U.S. bankruptcy court over wholesale power agreements was “unenforceable in bankruptcy court and of no force on the parties before it.” Judge Montali further noted that if necessary, the U.S. bankruptcy court will “enjoin FERC from perpetuating its attempt to exercise power it wholly lacks.” At issue, on review by the bankruptcy court, was whether, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201, the bankruptcy court has exclusive jurisdiction over Pacific Gas & Electric Company’s and Pacific Gas & Electric Corporation’s (collectively “Debtors”) right to reject a power purchase agreement (“PPA”) under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, and whether FERC has concurrent jurisdiction to grant or deny PG&E’s rejection of any PPAs.

Continue Reading

On May 16, 2019, FERC rescinded its policy of issuing public Notices of Alleged Violations (“NAV”) after a subject of an investigation has had an opportunity to respond to Office of Enforcement (“OE”) staff’s preliminary findings (“NAV Policy”).  FERC found that the NAV Policy no longer struck an appropriate balance between the benefit of added transparency and the potential negative impacts that the loss of confidentiality may cause to investigative subjects.
Continue Reading

On March 21, 2019, the Commission issued a proposed order directing two wind energy generators, Cedar Creek Wind Energy, LLC (“Cedar Creek”) and Cedar Creek II, LLC (“Cedar Creek II”) (collectively the “Cedar Creek Entities”) to provide interconnection and transmission service to a proposed wind project, Mountain Breeze Wind, LLC (“Mountain Breeze”) across jointly-owned interconnection customer facilities (“ICIF”) to the Public Service Company of Colorado (“PSCo”) transmission system.  Although Cedar Creek II sought to dismiss the matter as an impermissible attempt by Mountain Breeze to acquire an ownership interest in the ICIF outside of a Federal Power Act (“FPA”) Section 203 or Section 205 proceeding, FERC rejected this characterization and instead found narrowly that Mountain Breeze had properly filed an application for Commission-ordered service under FPA Sections 210 and 211.  FERC directed the parties to attempt to reach an agreement on the terms and conditions for interconnection and transmission service, or a separate order prescribing such terms and conditions would be issued.
Continue Reading

On January 4, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine (“Maine District Court”) issued an order on two motions for summary judgment concluding that FERC’s assessment of a civil penalty against Competitive Energy Services, LLC (“CES”) and its managing member, Richard Silkman (collectively, “Respondents”) was not time-barred by the statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2462.  In doing so, the Maine District Court denied the Respondents’ motion for summary judgment. 
Continue Reading

On September 24, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (“District Court”) concluded that FERC’s assessment of a civil penalty against Powhatan Energy Fund, LLC and certain of its traders and affiliates (“Powhatan”) for market manipulation allegations was not barred by the statute of limitations because FERC’s claim accrued when Powhatan failed to pay the civil penalty rather than when the alleged violations actually occurred.  However, the District Court noted that it was particularly difficult to apply the statute of limitations to enforcement actions brought under the Federal Power Act’s (“FPA”) de novo review procedures and thus stayed the issue to allow Powhatan to file an interlocutory appeal.
Continue Reading

On June 8, 2018, FERC approved a Stipulation and Consent Agreement (“Settlement”) between the Office of Enforcement (“OE”) and Duke Energy Corporation and its public utility operating subsidiaries (“Duke”).  OE claimed that Duke violated FERC regulations when it failed to accurately describe certain information in the transmission studies submitted in support of its merger with Progress Energy, Inc. (collectively, “Applicants”).  FERC determined that the Settlement was fair and reasonable and resolved all outstanding claims and proceedings between OE and Duke. 
Continue Reading

On May 4, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (“Second Circuit”) dismissed a private suit filed by a group of investors (“Plaintiffs”) seeking damages for Total Gas & Power North America, Inc., Total S.A., and Total Gas & Power Limited (collectively, “Total”) for allegedly manipulating natural gas markets at four western trading hubs.  In doing so, the Second Circuit held that Plaintiffs – who did not trade at the four western trading hubs at which Total traded, but argued that Total’s trading impacted Plaintiffs’ trading at the Henry Hub – established constitutional standing but failed to plead sufficient facts to establish a plausible substantive cause of action.
Continue Reading

On April 25, 2018, FERC approved a Stipulation and Consent Agreement (“Settlement”) between the Office of Enforcement (“OE”) and PSEG Resources & Trade, LLC (“PSEG).  The Settlement resolves an investigation into whether PSEG violated certain sections of the PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (“PJM”) Tariff, Operating Agreement, and FERC’s Market Behavior Rule, when PSEG submitted incorrect cost-based offers into the PJM energy market between 2005 and 2014.  FERC determined that the Settlement was a fair and equitable resolution of the matter, and that the penalty imposed upon PSEG reflected the nature and seriousness of the violations. 
Continue Reading