FERC and American Transmission Company Settle on $205,000 Penalty for Violations of Sections 203 and 205 of the Federal Power Act

Aug 30, 2017

Reading Time : 1 min

OE’s investigation focused on 21 asset transfers between August 2006 and February 2014 for which ATC failed to obtain prior authorization under Section 203 of the FPA and 42 instances between October 2000 and May 2011 in which ATC failed to timely file FERC-jurisdictional agreements or notices of termination of FERC-jurisdictional agreements under Section 205 of the FPA. Under the Stipulation and Consent Agreement, ATC admits the violations, agrees to a civil penalty of $205,000—after paying approximately $1.4 million in refunds to customers,and agrees to implement measures designed to ensure future compliance with its Section 203 and 205 obligations, including filing semiannual compliance monitoring reports for one year. (The Stipulation and Consent Agreement also describes numerous compliance program improvements that ATC has already implemented.)

In its order, FERC noted that ATC’s violations, while not willful, resulted from its failure to maintain an effective regulatory compliance program and created a lack of transparency in the market. Factors that FERC considered in determining ATC’s penalty included “the significant volume of transactions and agreements that were not timely submitted to the Commission; the multi-year duration of the violations; ATC’s self-reporting of the violations; the absence of direct harm caused by these violations; ATC’s cooperation and admission of its violations; and ATC’s resolution of this investigation without a hearing.”  FERC also emphasized “the importance of the obligation to file with the Commission all required rates and charges for jurisdictional services and all contracts and agreements relating to such services subject to FPA section 205 and to obtain authorization for all transactions subject to FPA section 203 . . . .”

ATC’s penalty, while comparatively modest, again underscores the importance of maintaining a robust FERC compliance program capable of identifying and ensuring compliance with applicable Section 203 and 205 requirements, as well as the potential value in FERC’s penalty calculus of self-reporting, cooperation with OE and admission of violations.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

July 8, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE) directing ISO-NE and ISO-NE participating transmission owners to show cause as to why ISO-NE’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (ISO New England Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,215 (2026) (Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 7, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in Leonard Hoffmann v. WBI Energy Transmission, Inc. (Hoffmann), which presents the question whether section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requires pipeline companies using federal eminent domain authority to pay landowners’ attorney’s fees in states where landowners can recover those fees under state law. In the decision giving rise to the Supreme Court’s review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a group of ranchers were not entitled to recover their $383,300 in attorney’s fees incurred while negotiating their compensation—creating a circuit split with four other courts of appeals. Hoffmann will be heard during the Court’s October 2026 Term, and marks the second time in five years that the Court has agreed to interpret NGA section 7.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 6, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued Trump v. Slaughter, fundamentally reshaping presidential removal authority over independent regulatory agencies. The decision overruled a 90-year-old precedent established in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had upheld the constitutionality of commissioner removal protections in the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act). As written, the FTC Act permits a commissioner’s removal “only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” In Slaughter, the Court was asked to reevaluate this standard following the President’s removal of a Democratic-appointed FTC commissioner from office in 2025 without cause. Finding for the President, the Court held that removal was permissible because the FTC Act’s for-cause removal protections for commissioners violate the separation of powers, specifically, the President’s removal power under Article II. The Court explained that the FTC exercises executive power because it promulgates binding rules, investigates and enforces those rules through administrative adjudications, and brings civil enforcement actions in federal court. It found that because it exercises these executive powers, its commissioners “must therefore be controlled by the Chief Executive, in whom such power is vested.” While previous recent cases addressing the scope of the Removal Power, Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Collins v. Yellen purported to preserve some kernel of Humphrey’s, the Court made clear that “[i]f anything more is left of Humphrey’s, we overrule it.”

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 25, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) directing CAISO and CAISO transmission owners to show cause as to why CAISO’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (California Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 195 FERC ¶ 61,214 (2026) (the Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

© 2026 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.