Case No. 22-15584
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Ninth Circuit
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vitol Inc.; Federico Corteggiano, Defendants-Appellants
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento
Honorable Kimberly J. Mueller, Chief District Judge
Case No. 2:20-cv-00040-KJM-AC
BRIEF OF EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE, ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY ASSOCIATION, AND ENERGY TRADING INSTITUTE AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS
Summary: The Electric Power Supply Association joined Edison Electric Institute and the Energy Trading Institute in filing an amicus brief supporting Vitol’s arguments that the 5-year statutory period for FERC enforcement of civil fines or penalties should begin from the date of the alleged wrongful conduct – not after FERC completes its administrative enforcement process and notice of proposed penalty is given to the defendant.
EEI, EPSA, and ETI note that uncertainty created by drawn-out enforcement cases ultimately harms electricity consumers. “Such uncertainty can increase finance costs for multi-billion-dollar investments, which in turn can increase the electricity prices for customers in an industry that often passes its costs, including the cost of capital, on to customers through rates.”
EPSA has weighed in on this issue several times over the last few years, having participated in amicus briefs in March 2022 (supporting interlocutory review – 9th Circuit), May 2020 (Eastern District of CA, FERC v. Vitol); January 2020 (4th Circuit, FERC v. Powhatan), and including addressing the issue in the June 2019 major energy trades’ FERC Enforcement White Paper (see here, Chapter 6).
