CFTC, Electricity, Energy Litigation, Energy Market Manipulation, FERC, Legislative Updates

As Agency Enforcement Efforts Mount, CFTC Prohibits Private Lawsuits Against RTOs/ISOs for Market Manipulation

gavelIncidents of alleged fraud and market manipulation in the energy markets increasingly have received the attention of federal agency enforcement efforts, including the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Our recent post highlights FERC’s growing efforts to combat market manipulation. And on November 21, 2016, the CFTC released its 2016 annual enforcement results, noting that one of its high impact cases involved attempted manipulation of natural gas monthly index settlement prices by a firm and individual trader and resulted in a $3.6 million penalty and 2-year trading limitation. Until recently, Regional Transmission Operators (RTOs) and Independent Service Operators (ISOs) may have had to answer for market manipulation not just to the government agencies that have regulatory jurisdiction over them, but also to individuals via private lawsuits. RTOs and ISOs can breathe a little easier though, now that the CFTC has changed its position and explicitly prohibited private rights of action against them for fraud and market manipulation under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA).

The 2013 RTO/ISO Order

In 2013, the CFTC issued an Order exempting certain RTO and ISO contracts and transactions from most of the provisions of the CEA. The 2013 RTO-ISO Order explicitly maintained that RTOs and ISOs were subject to the CEA’s anti-fraud and anti-market manipulation provisions and could be subject to claims brought by the CFTC for violations. A separate section of the CEA, Section 22, allows private individuals to bring actions against those who violate the statute. And the 2013 RTO-ISO Order did not address Section 22 private rights of action at all, leaving open the question of whether RTOs and ISOs could be subjected to private lawsuits for fraud and market manipulation under the CEA. On October 18, 2016, the CFTC decided to amend the 2013 RTO-ISO Order to explicitly prevent individuals from bringing private lawsuits against RTOs and ISOs, including for fraud and market manipulation under the CEA. The decision to prohibit private actions was welcomed by the industry, but was contrary to the CFTC’s original position and proposal on the issue.

CFTC’s Original Proposal to Preserve Private Actions

In 2013, the Southwest Power Pool requested to be exempted from certain provisions of the CEA similar to the RTOs/ISOs subject to the 2013 RTO-ISO Order. The CFTC issued a proposed order in response to SPP’s request (in 2015), taking the position that the 2013 RTO-ISO Order did not preclude private claims for fraud or market manipulation. At the time, the CFTC’s view was that if it meant to limit the right of private individuals to sue for CEA violations while reserving that right for itself, which would be unusual, there would have been analysis and justification to do so in its Order.

A federal court case then forced the CFTC to address squarely whether private rights of action for fraud and market manipulation under the CEA may be brought against RTOs and ISOs. In 2015, the Southern District of Texas dismissed a private suit alleging electricity market manipulation, finding that the private right of action was unavailable under the 2013 RTO-ISO Order. In early 2016, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal. Accordingly, the CFTC issued a notice of proposed order shortly thereafter which proposed to amend the 2013 RTO-ISO order to state explicitly that RTOs and ISOs were not exempt from private rights of action for fraud and market manipulation. The CFTC justified maintaining the private right of action, in part, because it “is instrumental in protecting the American public, deterring bad actors, and maintaining the credibility of the markets subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction,” and “was established by Congress as an integral part of the CEA’s enforcement and remedial scheme.”

Why the CFTC Change in Position?

In its final order, which became effective upon publication in the Federal Register on October 24, 2016, the CFTC decided to issue a complete exemption from the private right of action in CEA section 22, including fraud and market manipulation claims. Why the about-face? The CFTC was convinced by the comments it received, concluding that a variety of factors supported the prohibition on private actions, including that (1) the RTO-ISO markets are heavily regulated (by FERC, the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT), and the CFTC), (2) Congress considered and explicitly declined to grant a private right of action for electricity market manipulation when it amended the Federal Power Act in 2005, and (3) private actions could interfere with FERC and PUCT oversight of RTO-ISO markets. Although private individuals do not have the authority to sue directly, RTOs and ISOs may still find themselves the subject of enforcement proceedings prompted by individuals, as the CFTC did stress that the whistleblower provisions are intact and individuals can bring questionable behavior to the agency’s attention.

Brian Heslin

About Brian Heslin

Brian Heslin represents energy companies in regulatory proceedings at the state and federal level. In addition, he provides advice on busines and strategic planning, upstream natural gas supply and capacity negotiation, compliance and other related services.

Discussion

No comments yet.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Welcome to the Energy Interdependency Blog!

The landscape of the energy industry is rapidly changing, with a focus on the development of clean, domestic energy sources and a secure, reliable energy infrastructure driving significant changes in the interdependency of energy industry segments and an increase in government regulation. Continued growth in the domestic production of oil and natural gas has positioned the U.S. to be an energy exporter in the global market and will have a marked impact on the course of the industry’s development.

The Moore & Van Allen Energy Interdependency Blog seeks to inform companies navigating the domestic and global energy markets by providing leading-edge insight on issues critical to energy interdependency and developments in energy policy, regulation, and related litigation.

Connect to Recent Authors

  • Brian Heslin:  View Brian Heslin's Bio View Brian Heslin's LinkedIn profileFollow @BrianHeslin on Twitter
  • Mindy Vervais:  View Mindy Vervais’ Bio View Mindy Vervais’ LinkedIn profile

  • Subscribe to Blog Via Email

    Follow MVA

    facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

    Blog Topics

    Archives


    Our Energy Practice

    Headquartered in the burgeoning energy hub of Charlotte, NC, Moore & Van Allen has an extensive energy practice that is national and international in scope. Our energy team is composed of highly-skilled attorneys from a cross-section of legal disciplines with a thorough understanding of the complex technologies, transactions, and regulations inherent to the energy industry and its various segments, including natural gas & LNG, electricity, oil, water & sewer, telecommunications, and alternative energy & green technology.

    We leverage our significant experience to guide our clients successfully through the intricacies of their businesses, from marketing, compliance counseling, and project development, to project finance, federal and state regulation, investigations and litigation. We proudly and successfully serve companies throughout the nation, including the largest natural gas and electric companies in the Carolinas. Read More About Our Practice and Meet the MVA Energy Team.

    Disclaimer

    No Attorney-Client Relationship Created by Use of this Website: Neither your receipt of information from this website, nor your use of this website to contact Moore & Van Allen or one of its attorneys creates an attorney-client relationship between you and Moore & Van Allen. As a matter of policy, Moore & Van Allen does not accept a new client without first investigating for possible conflicts of interests and obtaining a signed engagement letter. (Moore & Van Allen may, for example, already represent another party involved in your matter.) Accordingly, you should not use this website to provide confidential information about a legal matter of yours to Moore & Van Allen.


    No Legal Advice Intended: This website includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances. You should contact an attorney for advice on specific legal problems. (Read All)