18 C.F.R. § 1c.2
Prohibition of electric energy market manipulation
(a) It shall be unlawful for any entity, directly or indirectly, in connection with the purchase or sale of electric energy or the purchase or sale of transmission services subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission,
(1) To use or employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud,
(2) To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or
(3) To engage in any act, practice, or course of business that operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any entity.
(b) Nothing in this section shall be construed to create a private right of action.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2007–2023 · leading case: Pub. Citizen, Inc. v. FERC, 7 F.4th 1177 (D.C. Cir. 2021).
Pub. Citizen, Inc. v. FERC, 7 F.4th 1177 (D.C. Cir. 2021). “” 18 C.F.R. § 1c.2. The Commission “defines fraud generally,” so that it “include[s] any action, transaction, or conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating a well- functioning market.”
Util. Workers Union of Am. Local 464 v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 896 F.3d 573 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “The resulting constricted supply contributed to a spike in the auction clearing price, to the benefit of the owner's other plants and to the detriment of retail electricity customers. Petitioners and others challenged the closure before the Commission as an attempt to manipulate…”
FERC v. Powhatan Energy Fund, LLC, 949 F.3d 891 (4th Cir. 2020). “See 18 C.F.R. § 1c.2(a). And Congress has vested FERC with the authority to enforce these rules by imposing civil penalties to the tune of up to $1 million per day per violation.”
F.E.R.C. v. Silkman, 359 F. Supp. 3d 66 (D. Me. 2019). “§ 824v and 18 C.F.R. § 1c.2 (Anti-Manipulation Rule), as well as the factual and legal bases for this conclusion.”
Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n v. Powhatan Energy Fund, LLC, 345 F. Supp. 3d 682 (E.D. Va. 2018). “§ 824v(a) 10 and 18 C.F.R. § 1c.2, 11 respectively. The OSC recommended that the Commission assess penalties and profit disgorgement against each of the Respondents in the following amounts: CU Fund: $10,080,000 civil penalty; $1,080,576 disgorgement; HEEP Fund: $1,920,000 civil…”
Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n v. City Power Mktg., LLC, 235 F. Supp. 3d 152 (D.D.C. 2017). “But to sum up this case, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) brought an administrative action against City Power and its founder Stephen Tsin-gas (collectively, “City Power”), a virtual trader 1 in the wholesale electricity market, for conducting allegedly…”
Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n v. Barclays Bank PLC, 247 F. Supp. 3d 1118 (E.D. Cal. 2017). “November 2006 to December 2008 in violation of 18 C.F.R. § 1c.2 (2012) (Anti-Manipulation Rule or 1c.”
Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n v. Powhatan Energy Fund, LLC (E.D. Va. 2023). “§ 824v(a) and 18 C.F.R. § 1c.2, respectively. The well-pleaded allegations in FERC’s Amended Complaint and Penalty Order, deemed admitted as a result of Powhatan’s default, meet the requirements for market manipulation A.”
Ferc v. Vitol Inc., 79 F.4th 1059 (9th Cir. 2023). “§ 824v(a); see also 18 C.F.R. § 1c.2(a). If FERC believes that a person has violated that prohibition, it may initiate administrative proceedings by issuing an order to show cause and notice of proposed penalty.”
Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n v. Vitol Inc (E.D. Cal. 2020). “2, by selling physical power at a loss in 4 California Independent System Operator’s (CAISO) wholesale electric market to eliminate 5 congestion costs in the Cragview LMPs3 that defendants expected to cause losses in their CRR4 6 positions.”
Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n v. Vitol Inc (E.D. Cal. 2021). “27 18 C.F.R. § 1c.2(a). 28 To properly understand the statutory antimanipulation provision, it helps to review its 29 origins.”
Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n v. Silkman (D. Me. 2019). “§ 824v(a) (2012), and the corresponding prohibition in the Commission’s regulations, 18 C.F.R. § 1c.2 (2013).” Id. FERC brought this lawsuit to enforce its civil penalty of $1,250,000 against Dr.”
— 18 C.F.R. § 1c.2(2011) — 1 case
F.E.R.C. v. Silkman, 359 F. Supp. 3d 66 (D. Me. 2019). “§ 824v and 18 C.F.R. § 1c.2 (Anti-Manipulation Rule), as well as the factual and legal bases for this conclusion.”
— 18 C.F.R. § 1c.2(a) — 6 cases
FERC v. Powhatan Energy Fund, LLC, 949 F.3d 891 (4th Cir. 2020). “See 18 C.F.R. § 1c.2(a). And Congress has vested FERC with the authority to enforce these rules by imposing civil penalties to the tune of up to $1 million per day per violation.”
Pub. Citizen, Inc. v. FERC, 7 F.4th 1177 (D.C. Cir. 2021). “” 18 C.F.R. § 1c.2. The Commission “defines fraud generally,” so that it “include[s] any action, transaction, or conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating a well- functioning market.”
Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n v. Powhatan Energy Fund, LLC, 345 F. Supp. 3d 682 (E.D. Va. 2018). “§ 824v(a) 10 and 18 C.F.R. § 1c.2, 11 respectively. The OSC recommended that the Commission assess penalties and profit disgorgement against each of the Respondents in the following amounts: CU Fund: $10,080,000 civil penalty; $1,080,576 disgorgement; HEEP Fund: $1,920,000 civil…”
Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n v. Powhatan Energy Fund, LLC (E.D. Va. 2023). “§ 824v(a) and 18 C.F.R. § 1c.2, respectively. The well-pleaded allegations in FERC’s Amended Complaint and Penalty Order, deemed admitted as a result of Powhatan’s default, meet the requirements for market manipulation A.”
Ferc v. Vitol Inc., 79 F.4th 1059 (9th Cir. 2023). “§ 824v(a); see also 18 C.F.R. § 1c.2(a). If FERC believes that a person has violated that prohibition, it may initiate administrative proceedings by issuing an order to show cause and notice of proposed penalty.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.