FERC energy trading compliance white paper

Enforcement staff at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission have released a white paper presenting their view of effective practices to ensure energy trading complies with prohibitions against market manipulation. The November 2016 document, “Staff White Paper On Effective Energy Trading Compliance Practices,” provides examples of compliance practices that Office of Enforcement staff have found effective in detecting and deterring market manipulation – as well as examples of ineffective compliance practices. Staff’s identification of these best practices and pitfalls can inform electric energy and natural gas market participants as they design, implement, and maintain strong compliance programs.

The Commission is charged with prohibiting market manipulation in jurisdictional electricity and gas markets. It has enunciated penalty guidelines, policy statements and regulations relating to preventing and penalizing market manipulation. These statements emphasize the importance of having an effective compliance program. As the Commission has described it, “For an organization’s compliance program to be deemed effective under the Penalty Guidelines, an organization must: (1) exercise due diligence to prevent and detect violations; and (2) otherwise promote an organizational culture that encourages a commitment to compliance with the law.”

The white paper provides additional insight into how the Office of Enforcement views compliance issues. It highlights the need for a “culture of compliance”:

For any compliance program to be effective, the organization must have a culture of compliance. Promoting a culture of compliance starts at the top, with a Chief Executive Officer and other executive officers who are committed to compliance and who demonstrate that commitment through action. The organization and the executive officers must be committed to promoting compliance at all levels by devoting the necessary resources to the organization’s compliance activities, implementing and enforcing rules and restrictions that are appropriate for the organization’s activities, ensuring that employees understand their compliance obligations, and continually assessing the effectiveness of the compliance practices.

The white paper then provides examples of effective compliance practices, organized into three categories. The first category focuses on designing an effective trading compliance program with a “strong foundation.” According to staff, this involves making “the appropriate decisions relating to: (1) the organizational structure and composition of the compliance function; (2) human resources issues, such as hiring standards, compensation, and discipline; (3) the types of training used to disseminate compliance information; and (4) the technological resources dedicated to the compliance function.”

The second category of practices identified by enforcement staff focuses on establishing, implementing, and enforcing effective practices to deter and detect market manipulation and other misconduct. In addition to implementing some or all of the practices described above in designing the organization’s compliance program, the white paper says organizations should also “(1) establish appropriate rules and restrictions for its traders that will further reduce the risk of misconduct; (2) consistently monitor trading activities for violations of those rules and for any other suspicious activity; and (3) strictly enforce all compliance rules and follow up on all potential issues.”

The third category focuses on assessing the performance of the compliance program on a regular basis. The Penalty Guidelines call for periodic evaluation of the effectiveness of the organization’s compliance program. The white paper provides additional color on staff’s views about assessment, calling for performance audits and taking action on all items identified in an audit.

The white paper finally identifies “ineffective trading compliance practices,” which staff said “generally reflect an organization’s failure to: (1) tailor its compliance program to the specific needs of its trading operation; (2) keep the compliance program up-to-date; (3) make compliance policies accessible to its employees both literally and from the prospective of employee comprehension; (4) place the appropriate emphasis on ensuring compliance; and (5) follow through on monitoring for violations and enforcing compliance-related rules.”

The white paper is designed to supplement the Commission’s Policy Statements, but it explicitly does not require organizations to establish or follow any specific practices to receive compliance credit under the Penalty Guidelines if a violation occurs. Instead, according to the white paper, the existence of these practices in an organization’s compliance program may factor positively into the Commission’s consideration of whether the organization’s compliance program was effective. At the same time, the white paper notes that “adopting the effective practices described herein will not shield an organization from, or provide a defense to, an enforcement action if the Commission concludes, after an evaluation of the facts and circumstances involved, that it committed a violation,” although having an effective compliance program in place at the time of a violation could lead to a reduced penalty.

FERC 2016 Report on Enforcement

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's enforcement program has shown consistency in recent years, according to a presentation by Office of Enforcement staff to the Commissioners.  On November 17, 2016, the Commission's Office of Enforcement released its 2016 Report on Enforcement.  This report, along with a presentation and two related white papers, provides insight into Commission staff’s views as well as emerging trends related to manipulation of FERC-jurisdictional markets.

Federal law charges the Commission with enforcing a variety of laws and regulations pertaining to utilities and energy matters.  These and related Commission policies include prohibitions on market manipulation.  Within the Commission, its Office of Enforcement houses various functions related to enforcing anti-market manipulation.

In its tenth annual Report on Enforcement, the Office of Enforcement provides information on the activities of all four OE Divisions: Analytics and Surveillance, Audits and Accounting, Energy Market Oversight, and Investigations.

As described in a related presentation by staff to the Commission:

A major theme reflected in this year’s Annual Report is the consistency in the Commission’s enforcement program. OE’s priorities have not changed over the past few years. We have focused, and will continue to focus, on four distinct areas: (1) fraud and market manipulation; (2) serious violations of the Reliability Standards; (3) anticompetitive conduct; and (4) conduct that threatens transparency in regulated markets.

Staff also published two white papers covering compliance practices and enforcement efforts:

• White Paper on Effective Energy Trading Compliance Practices
  
• White Paper on Anti-Market Manipulation Enforcement Efforts Ten Years After EPAct

FERC assesses Coaltrain penalties

U.S. energy regulators have issued an order assessing $38 million in civil penalties for alleged energy market manipulation, plus disgorgement of unjust profits.

The case involves Coaltrain Energy, L.P., two of its individual owners, and three traders.  In January 2016, the Commission issued an Order to Show Cause and Notice of Proposed Penalty, alleging that the respondents had engaged in fraudulent transactions in PJM Interconnection L.L.C.'s energy markets.  The show cause order, and a supporting Enforcement Staff Report, also include allegations that Coaltrain made false and misleading statements and material omissions during the Commission's investigation. 

FERC's case against Coaltrain has now moved forward.  In a May 27 order, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission found that Coaltrain and five named individuals violated section 222 of the Federal Power Act and section 1c.2 of the Commission’s regulations, which prohibit energy market manipulation, through a scheme to engage in fraudulent Up-To Congestion (UTC) transactions to garner excessive amounts of certain credit payments to transmission customers. 

According to the Commission, the Coaltrain respondents engaged in UTC trading conduct "similar to the behavior the Commission found fraudulent in its Chen and City Power orders issued last year," in that the UTCs were traded "not to profit based on price spread arbitrage, as the product was designed, but instead, to profit solely or primarily from a transmission credit that had nothing to do with the underlying product."  FERC alleges that the Coaltrain respondents "designed and implemented a fraudulent UTC trading scheme to receive excessive amounts of MLSA payments," or Marginal Loss Supply Allocation transmission credits.  In the Commission's words, "Respondents’ OCL Trades were manipulative because they were executed for the sole or primary purpose of targeting and garnering MLSA payments. Additionally, they were manipulative because they falsely appeared to PJM as being placed for the market design purpose of arbitraging price spreads, thus concealing their fraudulent nature and purpose."

The Order Assessing Civil Penalties also found that Coaltrain violated section 35.41(b) of the Commission's regulations, which in relevant part, prohibits a seller, such as Coaltrain, from submitting false or misleading information to or omitting material information from Commission staff.  The Commission found that in the course of responding to an investigation by FERC Office of Enforcement staff, Coaltrain intentionally withheld relevant documents from Commission staff while repeatedly representing to that its productions were “true, complete, and accurate.”  In particular, FERC concluded that Coaltrain held back documents recorded on its Spector 360 keystroke logging software discussing and reflecting its trading strategy, and only produced the documents to the Commission after agency staff discovered the documents' existence on their own.

The May 27 order states that based on the "seriousness of these violations," it is appropriate to assess civil penalties pursuant to section 316A(b) of the Federal Power Act in the following amounts:

$26,000,000 against Coaltrain (jointly and severally with Messrs. Peter Jones and Sheehan); $5,000,000 against Mr. Peter Jones; $5,000,000 against Mr. Sheehan; $1,000,000 against Mr. Robert Jones; $500,000 against Mr. Miller; and $500,000 against Mr. Wells. The Commission further directs Coaltrain, Mr. Peter Jones, and Mr. Sheehan to disgorge, jointly and severally, unjust profits, plus applicable interest, pursuant to section 309 of the FPA, in the amount of $4,121,894.

The Commission directed the respondents to pay the civil penalties within 60 days, or else the Commission said it will commence an action in a United States district court for an order affirming the penalty.

House subcommittee holds hearing on FERC oversight

Members of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission testify today before the House Energy & Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Energy and Power, as that committee considers its oversight of the FERC.

The FERC is an independent administrative agency within the Department of Energy.  Its mandate includes regulating the transmission, reliability, and wholesale sale of electricity in interstate commerce pursuant to the Federal Power Act; the transmission and sale of natural gas for resale in interstate commerce pursuant to the Natural Gas Act; the transportation of oil by pipeline in interstate commerce pursuant to the Interstate Commerce Act; and evaluating proposals to build liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals and interstate natural gas pipelines, as well as the licensing of non - federal hydropower projects.

As described in a committee background memorandum for today's hearing, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power is exploring whether FERC’s statutory authorities require modernization to reflect current energy realities.  Chief among those statutory authorities are the Federal Power Act and the Natural Gas Act.  The committee memorandum also notes an interest in evaluating "whether FERC is overstepping its existing statutory boundaries to pursue policy goals not intended by Congress."

Specific issues expected to be examined at the hearing include:

• Potential impacts of the U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan rule on electricity markets, fuel diversity, and electric reliability;
• Commission oversight of organized wholesale electricity markets and their operation
• Risks to the security of the electric grid, including physical and cyber security, geomagnetic disturbances, electromagnetic pulse, and severe weather;
• How to integrate renewable, intermittent resources and distributed generation;
• The role of demand response and other demand-side management technologies in wholesale markets, at issue in the EPSA v. FERC case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court; 
• Electric transmission operations and planning, including implementation of Order No. 1000;
• Natural gas pipeline permitting, LNG siting, and hydropower licensing;
• FERC market manipulation authorities and enforcement practices; and
• FERC’s implementation of the mandatory purchase obligation from qualifying facilities (QFs) under section 210 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978.

Based on prefiled documents, today's hearing features:

• testimony by FERC Chairman Norman Bay
• testimony by Commissioner Cheryl LaFleur
• testimony by Commissioner Tony Clark
• testimony by Commissioner Colette Honorable

More information about today's hearing can be found on the committee's webpage.

FERC 2015 Report on Enforcement

The enforcement arm of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has released a report describing its enforcement activities in fiscal year 2015.

The 69-page 2015 FERC staff report on enforcement draws its organization from that of the Commission's Office of Enforcement.  The report presents public summaries of activity by each of the Office’s four divisions -- Investigations, Audits, Energy Market Oversight, and Analytics and Surveillance.  Of these, Investigations and Audits are the most likely to lead to penalties or other direct enforcement action, while Market Oversight and Analytics typically play more of a background role, supporting the Commission's investigations and audits.

According to the report, the Investigations division opened 19 new investigations in fiscal 2015, and closed 22 (through settlement or "no action").  Major settlements in fiscal 2015 focused on the major 2011 Southwest power outage, with the Commission concluding its multiyear investigation into that outage and its causes.  In all, staff obtained settlements resulting in almost $26.25 million in civil penalties and disgorgement of $1 million in unjust profits. All settlements included reporting requirements and provisions requiring the subjects to enhance compliance programs.

The FERC enforcement office's Audits division periodically checks the records of licensees and public utilities to evaluate their compliance with the statutes and regulations administered by the Commission.  It reportedly performed 22 financial and operational audits of public utilities and oil and natural gas pipelines.  The report states that these audits led to 360 recommendations for corrective action, and refunds and recoveries totaling more than $26.3 million.

Generally speaking, the annual staff enforcement report is a summary of what's already happened.  In other words, the enforcement activity described in the annual report has already occurred.  Much of that activity was public; any civil penalties or other remedies described in the report are generally imposed and documented in separate, preexisting proceedings.  The report does also provide summary level information on some non-public Enforcement activities, like self-reported violations or investigations closed without public enforcement action.

The enforcement report also provides an important look into how the Commission staff view their work -- the enforcement office's patterns, trends, and priorities, as expressed by the people doing the enforcing.  By following the Commission's enforcement activity throughout the year, and comparing that history to staff's view of the year, the enforcement office's points of emphasis come into focus.  As expected, in fiscal year 2015, these included fraud and market manipulation, serious violations of mandatory reliability standards, and conduct that the office found to threaten the transparency of regulated markets.

The Office of Enforcement's annual report can also be compared to previous reports dating back to at least 2007.  Compared to some recent years, fiscal 2015 saw a relatively lower total penalty amount resulting from enforcement action.  (Compare 2015's $26.3 million in penalties and $1 million in disgorgement, with 2013's over $304 million in civil penalties and disgorgement of almost $141 million in unjust profits.)

But experience has shown that there can be difficulty, or at least delay, affecting whether FERC will actually collect that money.  The report notes that in fiscal 2015, Enforcement filed three new petitions in federal district court to enforce earlier Commission orders assessing civil penalties.  Along with an anti-manipulation case tried in 2015 before a FERC Administrative Law Judge, the report notes that staff is waging district court and administrative litigation to recover over $500 million in civil penalties and disgorgement.

Polar vortex caused energy price spikes, says FERC staff

Why did energy prices rise during last winter's extremely cold "polar vortex" weather?  A recent report by federal regulators suggests that inadequate infrastructure is largely to blame, while finding no evidence of widespread or sustained market manipulation.

A recent winter in New England: cold ocean, cold snow.  Must high energy prices follow?

The 2013 - 2014 winter season brought prolonged and unusually cold weather events in much of the United States.  While the nation's major electric grids were generally able to maintain reliable operation, prices for natural gas and electricity spiked to unprecedented levels.  Bottlenecks on interstate natural gas pipelines limited the amount of gas flowing into regions like the Northeast, while demand for gas for heating and electric power generation increased beyond the constrained pipelines' capacity.  This imbalance of supply and demand for gas led to extremely high prices for gas as well as for electricity, because the price of natural gas often sets the price for power.  Compounding the problem, some generators could not buy enough gas to operate, while others experienced outages due to equipment failure and frozen coal piles.  In some regions, generators amounting to 30 percent of electric load faced forced outages.

As an immediate response, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission took actions including changes to rules in the PJM, New York ISO and California ISO electricity markets, the Commission's first use of its emergency powers under the Interstate Commerce Act to direct Enterprise TE Products Pipeline to temporarily provide priority treatment to certain propane shipments, and approving a Winter Reliability Program in the ISO New England region.

According to a recently released report by the staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the FERC Office of Enforcement also launched investigations into whether market participant behavior influenced regulated energy prices.  In addition to the Commission's enforcement arm's regular surveillance of natural gas and electric markets for market manipulation and other improper conduct, the past winter's extreme price spikes prompted a closer look by the Office of Enforcement to determine if market manipulation was behind the historically high natural gas and electric prices.

On October 16, FERC’s enforcement staff reported that it found "no evidence of widespread or sustained market manipulation."  Enforcement staff said it reached its conclusions after an extensive review and data analysis related to gas trading behavior, allegations received through the FERC hotline, generator offer behavior and outage behavior.

However, enforcement staff reported that three non-public investigations remain pending.  At stake is whether any market participant was involved with the formation of a single monthly natural gas index to benefit its financial derivative positions, as well as whether certain generators improperly took advantage of constrained conditions in the electric markets by bidding in a way that increased their uplift payments.

Expect these enforcement investigations to continue, either to an informal resolution or a public enforcement process.  With former Office of Enforcement head Norman Bay as the newest FERC Commissioner, FERC's enforcement arm appears to be growing in influence.  Meanwhile, the coming winter may yet again test the nation's electricity and natural gas infrastructure.  What will the 2014 - 2015 winter hold, in terms of energy reliability, pricing, and enforcement actions?

Federal energy enforcement: $304 million in penalties in 2013

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has released its report on its enforcement activities in fiscal year 2013.  The FERC's 2013 Report on Enforcement (69-page PDF) gives the public insight into how the Commission's Office of Enforcement operates.  The report also provides key statistics on the Commission's 2013 enforcement actions, which led to over $304 million in civil penalties and disgorgement of almost $141 million in unjust profits.

In recent years, the Commission has increased its market surveillance and enforcement of federal energy law.  The Commission has explained that conduct involving fraud and market manipulation poses a significant threat to energy markets, and that this in turn harms consumers who are exposed to losses from intentional misconduct.  These concerns, coupled with increased enforcement powers granted in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, have led the Commission to ramp up its enforcement efforts.  Today, the Commission's Office of Enforcement is now structured around four divisions: Investigations, Audits and Accounting, Energy Market Oversight, and Analytics and Surveillance.  These divisions are designed to identify and prosecute violations of federal energy laws and regulations.

The enforcement report describes the Commission's 2013 activity, which includes the largest civil penalty ever assessed by the Commission.  In that case, the Commission found that Barclays Bank PLC and four traders violated the Commission’s rule against market manipulation.  As a result, the Commission assessed civil penalties of $435 million against Barclays and $18 million against the traders, and directed the company to disgorge $34.9 million plus interest in unjust profits.  That case is now before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.

The report also describes 29 financial and operational audits of public utilities and natural gas pipelines conducted in fiscal 2013.  According to the report, these audits resulted in 360 recommendations for corrective action, and directed the targeted companies to pay $15.4 million in refunds. Other recommendations directed improvements to companies’ internal processes and procedures, enhancements to the accuracy and transparency of reports and web sites, and more efficient and cost-effective operations.

The Commission announced that it does not intend to change its enforcement priorities for 2014.  As described in the report, the Commission will continue to target fraud and manipulation, serious violations of mandatory reliability standards, anticompetitive conduct, and conduct that threatens the transparency of regulated markets.