Enforcement 
All Civil Penalty Actions
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 |
|---|---|---|
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 Approving Stipulation and Consent Agreement, 156 FERC ¶ 61,223  (September 26, 2016), Prior Commission Activity: Order Assessing Civil Penalties, 151 FERC ¶ 61,094 (May 1, 2015), 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, then institutes an action in federal district court to review the assessment. 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. § 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 Maxim Respondents neither admit nor deny the alleged violations and agree to pay the disgorgement and civil penalty outlined in the Agreement. 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. . FERC and Maxim filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with the District Court. |
| 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) 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) |
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. |
| National Energy & Trade, L.P., Order Approving Stipulation and Consent Agreement, 156 FERC ¶ 61,154 (September 1, 2016) |
Civil penalties in the amount of $1,155,225.91, and disgorgement in the amount of $305,780.50, plus interest (disgorgement and interest to be paid to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) of the state of Texas), against National Energy & Trade, L.P. | The Commission issued an Order approving a Stipulation and Consent Agreement (Agreement) between the Office of Enforcement (Enforcement) and National Energy & Trade, L.P. (National Energy). The Agreement resolves the investigation conducted by Enforcement into whether National Energy violated the Commission’s Anti-Manipulation Rule, 18 C.F.R. § 1c.1 (2016), by manipulating physical natural gas prices between January 1, 2011 and September 30, 2015 at the Houston Ship Channel, Tetco M3, Transco Zone 6 (New York), and Henry Hub in order to benefit its related financial positions. National Energy neither admits nor denies the alleged violations, but it agrees to payment of the civil penalty and disgorgement. |
| In re David Silva, Order Approving Stipulation and Consent Agreement, 156 FERC ¶ 61,155 (September 1, 2016) |
Civil penalties in the amount of $40,000, and a one-year ban from participation in any FERC-jurisdictional natural gas markets, against David Silva | The Commission issued an Order approving a Stipulation and Consent Agreement (Agreement) between the Office of Enforcement (Enforcement) and David Silva. The Agreement resolves the investigation conducted by Enforcement into whether David Silva violated the Commission’s Anti-Manipulation Rule, 18 C.F.R. § 1c.1 (2016), by manipulating physical natural gas prices in January 2012 in order to benefit his related financial position. David Silva neither admits nor denies the alleged violations, but he agrees to payment of the civil penalty and the one-year ban. |
| Saracen Energy Midwest, LP, Order Approving Stipulation and Consent Agreement, 156 FERC ¶ 61,122 (August 22, 2016) |
Civil penalties of $25,000 and compliance monitoring reporting. | The Commission issued an Order approving a Stipulation and Consent Agreement (Agreement) between the Office of Enforcement (Enforcement) and Saracen Energy Midwest, LP (Saracen). The Agreement resolves the investigation conducted by Enforcement into whether Saracen violated Southwest Power Pool, Inc.’s (SPP) Tariff, Attachment AE, Section 7.4.1(4), by submitting bids for Transmission Congestion Rights (TCRs) at Electrically Equivalent Settlement Locations (EESLs) for auctions in September and October 2014, and March and April 2015. Saracen admits the facts, but neither admits or denies the alleged violations. Saracen agrees to payment of the civil penalty and compliance measures. |
| ETRACOM LLC and Michael Rosenberg, Docket No. IN16-2-000, Order Assessing Penalties, 155 FERC ¶ 61,284 (June 17, 2016) Prior Commission Activity: 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. | 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 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 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. |
| Lincoln Paper and Tissue, LLC, Docket No. IN12-10-000, Order Approving Stipulation and Consent Agreement, 155 FERC ¶ 61,228 (June 1, 2016) Prior Commission Activity: Order Assessing Civil Penalties, 144 FERC ¶ 61,162 (August 29, 2013); Order to Show Cause, 140 FERC ¶ 61,031 (July 17, 2012) |
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 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 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.’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. 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, Docket No. IN16-4-000 Order Assessing Penalties, 155 FERC ¶ 61,204 (May 27, 2016) Prior Commission Activity: Order to Show Cause and Notice of Proposed Penalty, 154 FERC ¶ 61,002 (January 6, 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 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. |
| 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 (March 30, 2016) |
Disgorgement and civil penalties as follows, respectively: $1,012,563, plus interest in disgorgement by 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 Commission’s Anti-Manipulation Rule, 18 C.F.R. § 1c.1 (2015), and whether Berkshire separately violated the Market Behavior Rules, 18 C.F.R. § 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: $641,150,012.
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: $20,160,000 in BP America Inc., et al. that is now at the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; $453,000,000 in Barclays Bank PLC, et al.; $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; $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.; $2,400,000 against ETRACOM LLC and $100,000 against Michael Rosenberg assessed in ETRACOM LLC, et al.; $213,600,000 civil penalty against TGPNA, $1,000,000 civil penalty against Hall, and $2,000,000 civil penalty against Tran proposed in Total Gas & Power North America.
Total Disgorgement ordered for all years 2007 to present: $401,876,028.
Total Disgorgement does not include amounts ordered in the following currently pending matters: $34,900,000 ordered in Barclays Bank PLC, et al.; $166,841 ordered in Competitive Energy Services, LLC; $207,169 in BP America Inc., et al.; that is now at the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; $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. $315,072 plus interest assessed in ETRACOM LLC, et al.; $9,180,000 proposed in Total Gas & Power North America.
Total Other Payments ordered for all years 2007 to present: $8,200,000
“Other payments” are defined as miscellaneous items ordered by the Commission that have a financial value, but are not considered a civil penalty or disgorgement. They include payments towards mitigation, enhancements, compliance activities, or a hurricane charitable fund. Payments included in this total are: $1,000,000 charitable donation ordered in Entergy Energy Services, Inc. in 2007; $1,000,000 in compliance plan improvements ordered in Duquesne Light Company in 2008; $2,000,000 in compliance plan improvements ordered in Edison Mission in 2008; $2,000,000 in mitigation and compliance plan improvements ordered in Grand River Dam Authority in 2011; $2,200,000 in public safety enhancements and computer system upgrades ordered in Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P. and Brookfield Power US Assets Management, LLC in 2014.
