Bracewell & Giuliani

Powered by the attorneys of Bracewell & Giuliani, Energy Legal Blog® is your resource for updates and analysis on national and global energy issues.
  1. What Constitutes a Reasonable and Prudent Operator?

    Friday, November 13, 2015 9:18 am by , and

    The English Commercial Court interprets the definition of the standard of a “Reasonable and Prudent Operator” in the context of a dispute relating to long term gas sales agreements

    The phrase “reasonable and prudent operator” is frequently used in commercial contracts in the oil and gas industry to specify the standard at which a party must perform a particular obligation (or group of obligations).  Helpfully, contracts often define the phrase in order to give the content of that standard greater substance, albeit a definition that inevitably imports a degree of subjective judgement. (more…)

  2. The UK’s New Reporting Obligations on Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking

    Friday, October 30, 2015 2:30 pm by and


    A “Race to The Top” to Tackle an Atrocious Global Problem


    Companies or partnerships carrying on business in the UK with an annual turnover of £36 million (around US$55.5 million) or more will now, for the first time, be required to publish an annual statement setting out the steps they have taken to ensure that there is no modern slavery or human trafficking in their own business and their supply chains.

    This is not sector specific such that only banks or energy companies (for example) are impacted.  This is relevant for all companies who fall within these new reporting obligations.  (more…)

  3. Scope of Trial De Novo Debated in Barclays Electricity Manipulation Case

    Wednesday, June 24, 2015 4:34 pm by , and

    After almost eight years since the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) commenced its investigation against Barclays Bank PLC (Barclays) and four of its traders, Scott Connelly, Daniel Brin, Karen Levine and Ryan Smith, for allegedly manipulating the California electricity markets, Barclays filed its answer in federal district court. As expected, Barclays denied all of FERC’s substantive allegations and asserted that the District Court should give no merit to FERC’s findings of fact or legal conclusions. FERC, according to Barclays and the individual traders, must prove its case before an independent arbiter and cannot rely on anything that happened at the agency level. FERC is seeking a $435 million civil penalty against Barclays; $15 million against Connelly; and $1 million each from Brin and Levine. (more…)

  4. FERC Finds Manipulation Violations by Company and Trader that Complied with Tariff but did not Act to Further Market Design Goals

    Friday, May 29, 2015 2:50 pm by and

    On May 29, 2015, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued an Order Assessing Civil Penalties against Powhatan Energy Fund and its affiliates as well as against Houlian Chen, Powhatan’s chief trader, for violating FERC’s anti-manipulation rule. FERC ordered Powhatan to pay $28.8 million in penalties and over $4.7 million in disgorgement and it ordered Chen to pay an additional $1 million penalty. In this assessment order, FERC rejected all of Powhatan’s arguments and instead adopted the Division of Enforcement’s recommendations on the facts, the law and the penalty amounts. The Order directs Powhatan and Chen to pay the penalties and the disgorgement amounts within 60 days of the date of the order. Similar to the Barclays case currently pending in federal district court in California, because Powhatan previously elected to have the matter heard de novo in federal district court, if Powhatan and Chen fail to pay, FERC must go to federal district court to enforce its penalty assessment.


  5. A permit system may finally arrive for the Migratory Bird Treaty Act – New Opportunities and Responsibilities

    Wednesday, May 27, 2015 5:06 pm by

    TexasBarToday_TopTen_Badge_SmallFor years, Federal Courts have held that individuals can be held criminally liable under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) for the death of birds regardless of whether they intended to harm them. While several courts have recently called into question this precedent, yesterday, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) started a process that could help clarify liability under the Act. However, with this clarity will come additional regulatory obligations and the creation of a bright line between compliance and noncompliance.

    Like the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the MBTA imposes criminal liability for harming specifically-identified birds. Unlike the ESA, however, the MBTA does not currently have an extensive permitting system. As a result, most companies are unable to proactively ensure compliance with the MBTA unless they can avoid harming any migratory birds during their operations – and complete avoidance is extremely difficult when engaging in many industrial activities of any scale. Thus, entities operating wind energy, communication towers, oil and gas production, and electrical transmission facilities, for example, have generally adopted best management practices and hoped that their proactive efforts would result in lenient treatment by FWS if and when their operations accidentally harm migratory birds. (more…)

  6. Federal District Court Denies Barclays Motion to Dismiss FERC Petition Which Alleges Manipulation and Assesses Significant Penalties

    Thursday, May 21, 2015 2:02 pm by , , and

    For the past two years we have been tracking and reporting on an enforcement proceeding brought by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) against Barclays Bank PLC (“Barclays”), Daniel Brin, Scott Connelly, Karen Levine, and Ryan Smith (collectively, the “Traders” and together with Barclays, “Defendants”) for alleged manipulative trading in the western electricity markets from November 2006 to December 2008. Yesterday, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied a motion by the Defendants to dismiss the manipulation action. Although the court’s order did not address the merits of the manipulation charge, the court’s order is significant because it is the first judicial ruling on the scope of FERC’s enforcement authority over the physical electricity markets and the court found that FERC can pursue civil penalty actions against individuals as well as companies. (more…)

Recent Posts


Sign Up For Updates

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner