FERC Approves Four MISO Market Manipulation Settlements

Jan 8, 2015

Reading Time : 1 min

Under the Settlement Agreements, Twin Cities and the Traders agree to pay collectively $4,228,186 in civil penalties and disgorgement, and to implement various additional compliance measures, including filing semi-annual compliance reports. While Twin Cities admits OE’s alleged violations, the Traders neither admit nor deny the allegations against them.

OE’s investigation focused on Twin Cities’ and the Traders’ physical power flows and their relationship with Twin Cities’ financial positions and determined that, on 144 days during the relevant period, one or more of the Traders scheduled physical power in the direction of Twin Cities’ financial swaps with the intent of affecting prices at the MISO Cinergy Hub to benefit those financial positions. The physical power flows, OE determined, “were not intended to get the best price and were not in response to market fundamentals.” Rather, they were “occasionally profitable, but over time produced significant losses.” Yet, they “consistently resulted in gains to, or avoided losses from, the Traders’ financial swap positions,” representing yet another example of the “tool and target” market manipulation framework that then-OE director and new FERC Commissioner Norman C. Bay described in Senate subcommittee testimony in January 2014. OE determined that, “during the Relevant Period, the Traders’ financial swap positions benefitted by $978,186 from the manipulative scheme.”

FERC notes in the Order that Twin Cities’ acceptance of responsibility for its violations and avoidance of a trial-type hearing factored into its remedy determination and emphasized that “using physical power flows to influence physical prices for the purpose of enhancing the value of financial positions violates [its] Anti-Manipulation Rule.” Commissioner Bay, who was the director of OE during the Relevant Period, did not vote on the Order.


1 MISO Cinergy Hub Transactions, 149 FERC ¶ 61,278 (2014).

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.