Environmental Enforcement

California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) recently took a further step toward expanding the scope of state Proposition 65 regulations to out-of-state online retailers that sell into California when it issued an emergency regulation under Proposition 65 for canned and bottled foods and beverages containing bisphenol A (BPA).[1] The emergency regulation provides recommended “safe harbor” warning language for products containing BPA, a substance commonly used to line food containers, including metal cans, bottle caps, and jar lids, and requires retailers—including online retailers if the products are offered for sale in California—to place warnings at checkout areas explaining that exposure to BPA is known to cause reproductive harm to women.
Continue Reading OEHHA Requires Proposition 65 Warnings for BPA, Including for Items Sold Over the Internet

At a recent speech at an energy industry conference CFTC Commissioner Scott D. O’Malia highlighted energy market participant concerns with the CFTC’s Dodd-Frank Rulemakings.  These concerns indicate potential regulatory changes at the CFTC that could impact energy market participants.

Commissioner O’Malia noted that the CFTC must re-visit the swap dealer
Continue Reading Potential CFTC Regulatory Changes for Energy Market Participants Highlighted by Commissioner Scott O’Malia

Earlier this year, the CFTC and FERC announced an information sharing Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the two agencies. The agencies have now announced that they have begun sharing market data pursuant to this MOU.  In addition, they have created an Interagency Surveillance and Data Analytics Working Group “to
Continue Reading FERC and CFTC Launch Information Sharing MOU

Norman Bay, Director of FERC’s Office of Enforcement, testified yesterday before the Senate Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection regarding regulations for financial holding companies and physical commodities.

In prepared remarks, Mr. Bay stated that FERC has the “tools necessary to effectively police FERC-regulated markets” but identified
Continue Reading Director of FERC Enforcement Highlights Need for Jurisdictional Clarity and Improved Information Sharing with CFTC, Role of Financial Institutions in Physical Markets

On January 2, 2014, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) entered into two Memoranda of Understanding (the MOUs) to set forth procedures to address circumstances of overlapping jurisdiction (the Jurisdiction MOU) and to share information in connection with market surveillance and investigations into potential market manipulation, fraud or abuse (the Information MOU).

The MOUs were entered into in response to a provision of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the Dodd-Frank Act) that directed the FERC and CFTC to develop the MOUs.  The directive in the Dodd-Frank Act was the result, in part, of jurisdictional disputes in recent years related to investigations that implicated the jurisdictions of both the FERC and the CFTC, particularly in cases dealing with the potential manipulation of the natural gas markets.  Specifically, in Hunter v. FERC, No. 11-1477 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 15, 2013), the D.C. Circuit Court rejected FERC’s assertion of jurisdiction over the trading of natural gas futures contracts when the Court held that the CFTC has exclusive jurisdiction over all transactions involving futures (the underlying FERC case was filed prior to the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act).  In addition to directing the FERC and CFTC to enter into the MOUs, the Dodd-Frank Act also clarified the jurisdiction of the respective agencies.  The MOUs supersede a 2005 Memorandum of Understanding the agencies had been employing for the exchange of information related to oversight or investigations.
Continue Reading FERC and CFTC Enter into Long-Awaited MOUs in Response to Dodd-Frank Act

Barclays Bank and four of its traders (collectively, “Barclays”) moved on December 16, 2013 to dismiss charges of market manipulation brought by FERC’s Office of Enforcement.  FERC’s complaint seeks to affirm a combined $488 million in civil penalties and disgorgement in federal court for the Eastern District of California based
Continue Reading Barclays Moves to Dismiss FERC Market Manipulation Suit

FERC on December 2 filed two suits in the District of Massachusetts to affirm orders alleging market manipulation in the ISO New England demand response market in 2007 and 2008.

In the first case (docket number 13-13054), the Commission seeks to affirm its August 29, 2013 order finding that Competitive
Continue Reading FERC Sues in Federal Court to Affirm Demand Response Manipulation Orders