United States: FERC Strikes Back On Financial Market Jurisdiction In BP Manipulation Case

The vexed question of FERC jurisdiction over alleged manipulation of the natural gas futures markets recently bubbled back to the surface, as the commission embraced the aggressive view of FERC anti-manipulation powers asserted by the Office of Enforcement against BP America. Authors Zachary Brez, Jon Daniels and Joe Harrington of Ropes & Gray LLP explain why the commissioners did not think FERC's 2013 defeat in the D.C. Circuit in a futures case pitting it against the CFTC applied to the BP facts. Industry may prevail again in the courts, they say, but it may take more arguments.

1. Introduction

On May 15, 2014, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC" or the "Commission") denied BP's motion to dismiss allegations that it manipulated natural gas markets in 2008.1 In siding with its Office of Enforcement staff's ("OE Staff") opposition to BP's motion, FERC rejected a challenge to its jurisdiction over allegedly manipulative transactions. The challenge was based on a decision 14 months earlier, in Hunter v. FERC,2 in which the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held that FERC lacked jurisdiction over allegedly manipulative natural gas futures transactions.

FERC construed Hunter narrowly in permitting the case against BP to proceed and asserted a broad understanding of its own jurisdiction. Further administrative proceedings, and perhaps another appeal to the D.C. Circuit, will test that construction's plausibility. An analysis of Hunter and the recent BP decision help illuminate the future of FERC's market-policing authority.

2. FERC's authority to sanction market manipulation

Assessing BP's challenge to FERC's jurisdiction requires an understanding of the natural gas industry's statutory and regulatory regime. Section 4A of the Natural Gas Act ("NGA") empowers FERC to promulgate rules prohibiting use of "any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance."3 Pursuant to this authority, FERC enacted the so-called Anti-Manipulation Rule as Section 1c.1 of the Commission's regulations. This regulation prohibits three types of conduct: (1) using "any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud," (2) making a misleading statement or omission of a material fact, and (3) engaging in "any act, practice, or course of business that operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any entity."4 Importantly, both the NGA and the Anti-Manipulation Rule only apply to conduct "in connection with the purchase or sale of natural gas or the purchase or sale of transportation services subject to the jurisdiction of [FERC]."5 According to Section 1(b) of the NGA, FERC has jurisdiction over the transport or sale for resale of natural gas in interstate commerce.6 The Commission's jurisdiction does not extend to intrastate transportation or transactions.7

3. The allegations against BP

a. Physical versus financial positions at the Houston Ship Channel

OE Staff has accused BP of making uneconomical physical gas sales at the Houston Ship Channel ("HSC") to suppress prices and to make its financial position more profitable. In order to appreciate these allegations, it is important to first understand the nature of the natural gas market in which BP was trading.

HSC is a distribution hub connecting physical natural gas supply to intra- and interstate pipeline systems for eventual downstream consumption. Suppliers' physical gas holdings, or "physical positions," at HSC demonstrate their expectations about future prices there. Investors can also speculate on HSC gas prices by buying or selling HSC Gas Daily index swaps. The HSC Gas Daily index is a monthly average of daily HSC physical gas prices, and index swaps are financial instruments whose value is determined by the price level of the underlying index. An investor who expects HSC gas prices to drop thus sells index swaps to benefit from an expected decline in the HSC index. A buyer, by contrast, expects prices to rise and the instruments' value to increase. Investors' holdings of HSC index swaps, reflecting their beliefs about future gas prices, are "financial positions" at HSC.

For either physical or financial participants, a "short" position describes actions indicating expected price decreases, either physical supply reduction or index swap sales. Participants increasing physical holdings or buying index swaps take "long" positions. BP was both a supplier of physical gas at HSC and a trader in HSC Gas Daily index swaps, and thus had both a financial and a physical position at the hub.

b. BP's positions September through November 2008

In early 2008, BP sold HSC Gas Daily index swaps, acquiring a short financial position at HSC. BP also bought index swaps at another natural gas hub, Henry Hub in Louisiana. In essence, BP had bet on high prices at Henry Hub coupled with low prices at HSC. In September 2008, Hurricane Ike caused HSC prices to fall behind those at Henry Hub. Disruptions from the storm shut down smaller, intrastate pipeline systems fed by gas from HSC. Halted downstream consumption reduced interstate pipeline flows, leading to an oversupply of natural gas at HSC and therefore depressed prices at the hub. By contrast, Henry Hub's prices did not drop dramatically after the hurricane. BP's relative financial positions at the two hubs proved lucrative. From Sept. 18 until the end of November, BP continued to increase its bet that HSC prices would lag behind Henry Hub's for the near future by selling HSC index swaps and acquiring Henry Hub index swaps.

As HSC-supplied pipeline systems' demand for natural gas slowly returned to pre-Ike levels, BP increased its supply of physical gas at HSC through purchases and shipments from the nearby Katy Hub for sale at HSC. BP's increased supply at HSC, OE staff claimed, perpetuated the post-hurricane glut and increased profits on BP's financial positions at HSC and Henry Hub. OE Staff alleged that BP's acquisition of natural gas for sale at HSC ran counter to its financial position. Further, BP could have sold its gas supply at Katy Hub at higher margins than it realized by transporting it from Katy to HSC for sale. The apparently contradictory positions and uneconomical sales, according to OE Staff, indicated physical market manipulation designed to increase returns on BP's financial position.

4. Insight from Hunter for jurisdictional analysis in BP

FERC issued its show cause order to BP on Aug. 5, 2013, less than five months after the D.C. Circuit issued its Hunter opinion. The opinion rejected FERC's attempt to regulate natural gas futures trading pursuant to its market manipulation authority. Hunter did not identify the precise boundaries of FERC's jurisdiction, however. BP's challenge to FERC's jurisdiction required an expansive reading of Hunter. FERC rejected that interpretation, along with BP's motion to dismiss. Examining Hunter is necessary to understand the future of FERC's market manipulation authority in the BP case and beyond.

a. The D.C. Circuit opinion

In Hunter v. FERC, an employee of the hedge fund Amaranth named Brian Hunter appealed FERC's penalty for alleged manipulation of natural gas futures contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange. The Commodities Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC") regulates that exchange. Hunter sold a significant number of natural gas futures contracts in certain 2006 settlement periods, during which Hunter's sales constituted between 14.4 percent and 19.4 percent of total market volume. The sales' volume and timing reduced the settlement price for natural gas, benefiting his short financial position. FERC filed a market manipulation action and imposed a $30 million penalty. CFTC intervened on Hunter's behalf, claiming it possessed exclusive jurisdiction to sanction manipulative activity in futures markets.

The court sided with CFTC and Hunter, finding that the Commodity Exchange Act ("CEA") administered by CFTC, established CFTC's exclusive jurisdiction over futures markets. To permit FERC to regulate activities in such markets, the court held, would require finding statutory provisions evincing a clear, manifest congressional intent to repeal CEA's grant of exclusive jurisdiction to CFTC. Importantly, CFTC's intervention meant that the court did not review FERC's interpretation of its own jurisdiction for a permissible construction, as established in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc..8

b. Jurisdictional exclusivity

Hunter's holding that FERC lacked jurisdiction to regulate natural gas futures markets depended largely on CFTC's exclusive authority to regulate futures markets. Though FERC argued that its jurisdiction overlapped with CFTC's, the statutory basis for CFTC's exclusive jurisdiction is strong. Not only does CEA describe CFTC's jurisdiction as exclusive,9 but this authority is reinforced by the fact that NGA section 23 states that "[n]othing in this section may be construed to limit or affect the exclusive jurisdiction of [CFTC] under the Commodity Exchange Act."10

BP's exclusivity argument lacks the statutory support and agency intervention that benefitted Hunter's. BP argued that NGA section 1(b) prohibits FERC's intervention in intrastate commerce, just as section 23 demands deference to CFTC's exclusive jurisdiction over futures markets. NGA section 1(b) states that the "[NGA] shall not apply to any other transportation or sale of natural gas or to the local distribution of natural gas or to the facilities used for such distribution or to the production or gathering of natural gas."11 BP likened NGA's delegation of some energy matters to the states to CFTC's singular authority in futures markets.

A claim of states' exclusive jurisdiction over intrastate conduct will face tougher scrutiny than did CFTC's assertion of exclusive jurisdiction in Hunter. There, the court's finding that the Commodities Exchange Act granted exclusive jurisdiction limited its inquiry to whether "Congress clearly and manifestly intend[ed] to impliedly repeal CEA section 2(a)(1)(A) when it enacted the Energy Policy Act of 2005."12 With no competing government entity asserting authority, FERC's interpretation of its own jurisdiction will be accorded Chevron deference.

The Hunter court contrasted the two standards of review: "Because the 'premise of Chevron deference is that Congress has delegated the administration of a particular statute to an executive branch agency . . . we have never deferred where two competing governmental entities assert conflicting jurisdictional claims."13 Since BP will need to face this additional hurdle, the argument that FERC is again trespassing on another agency's authority may be available to BP but will prove more difficult than in Hunter.

c. "In connection with" jurisdiction under Natural Gas Act section 4A

In both Hunter and BP's case, FERC sought to limit manipulative conduct in markets outside of its jurisdiction based on the effect of this conduct on prices within FERC-regulated markets. In Hunter, the non-jurisdictional conduct was the sale of natural gas futures contracts, and the jurisdictional impact was a drop in natural gas prices. In BP's case, the non-jurisdictional conduct was the intrastate sale and transport of physical gas.

In its motion to dismiss, BP contended that its allegedly manipulative conduct—physical gas sales at, and transportation to, HSC—occurred within a single state and was thus exempt from FERC's NGA section 1(b) authority. OE Staff denied that BP engaged only in intrastate commerce at HSC, instead alleging that some of BP's conduct amounted to interstate sales or transportation, so-called "jurisdictional transactions." More important than that factual dispute was OE Staff's argument that NGA section 4A grants FERC jurisdiction over the conduct in question. Daily physical gas sales at HSC include both intrastate (non-jurisdictional) and interstate (jurisdictional) transactions, depending on the parties involved. Thus, even if HSC's efforts to depress prices at HSC manifested in intrastate transactions, OE Staff reasoned, BP's manipulative conduct occurred "in connection with" interstate transactions whose prices dropped.

The Hunter court's reaction to FERC's "in connection with" theory of jurisdiction is ambiguous. On the one hand, the court agreed with CFTC's conclusion that FERC's jurisdictional theory "would allow any agency having authority to prosecute manipulation of the spot price of a commodity to lawfully exercise jurisdiction with respect to the trading of futures contracts in that commodity."14 BP will likely argue that the Hunter court highlighted the implications of FERC's section 4A jurisdiction to emphasize the limits on FERC's anti-manipulation authority.

On the other hand, the Hunter court seemed to endorse FERC's interpretation of section 4A, provided it did not encroach on other agencies' jurisdictions. Summarizing the argument, the court wrote "FERC contends that it is empowered to prohibit manipulation not only in FERC-regulated markets but also when the manipulation coincides with—i.e., is 'in connection with,' 'directly or indirectly'—FERC-jurisdictional gas transactions."15 The court believed that interpretation indicated that NGA did not seek to repeal CFTC's mandate, "because FERC is free to prohibit manipulative trading in markets outside the CFTC's exclusive jurisdiction."16 That statement seems to limit Hunter's holding to exclusive jurisdiction turf wars, rather than casting it as a broad rebuke of FERC's anti-manipulation authority.

5. Conclusion

No matter the course of FERC's enforcement action against BP, the case embodies FERC's expansive and aggressive view of its own anti-manipulation jurisdiction. Hunter shed some light on appellate courts' reaction to this interpretation. Nevertheless, CFTC's exclusive jurisdiction over futures markets presented a peculiar set of circumstances that may not apply to the BP matter. Thus, further challenges to FERC's jurisdiction, whether by BP or others, will continue to shape the outer bounds of the FERC's enforcement authority.

Originally published by Bloomberg BNA "Daily Report for Executives".


1 BP America Inc., et al., Order Establishing Hearing, 147 FERC ¶ 61,130 (2014). The order is available on FERC's eLibrary at http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp. The four entities that moved to dismiss FERC's enforcement action are BP America Inc., BP Corporation North America Inc., BP America Production Company, and BP Energy Company and are collectively referred to herein as "BP."

2 711 F.3d 155 (D.C. Cir. 2013).

3 Natural Gas Act, § 4A, 15 U.S.C.A. § 717c–1.

4 18 CFR § 1c.1. Upon promulgating the Anti-Manipulation Rule, FERC stated that the rule was modeled on the SEC's Rule 10b-5 and that its interpretation should be consistent with analogous SEC precedent. Order No. 670, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,202 (codified at 18 C.F.R. §§ 1c.1, 1c.2).

5 Natural Gas Act, § 4A, 15 U.S.C.A. § 717c–1; 18 CFR § 1c.1.

6 Natural Gas Act, § 1(b), 15 U.S.C.A. § 717(b).

7 Natural Gas Act, § 1(c), 15 U.S.C.A. § 717(c).

8 467 U.S. 837, 841-42 (1984) (holding that when a "court reviews an agency's construction of the statute which it administers . . . [and] determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction on the statute, as would be necessary in the absence of an administrative interpretation. Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.").

9 Commodity Exchange Act, § 9(a)(2), 7 U.S.C.A. § 13(a)(2).

10 Natural Gas Act, § 23(c)(2),15 U.S.C. § 717t–2(c)(2).

11 Natural Gas Act, § 1(b), 15 U.S.C.A. § 717(b).

12 Hunter v. FERC, 711 F.3d 155, 158 (D.C. Cir. 2013).

13 Id. at 157 (quoting Salleh v. Christopher, 85 F.3d 689, 691–92 (D.C.Cir.1996)).

14 Id. at 158.

15 Id. at 160.

16 Id.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:
  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.
  • Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.
    If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here
    If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here

    Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

    Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

    Use of www.mondaq.com

    You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


    Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

    The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


    Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

    • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
    • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
    • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

    Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

    Information Collection and Use

    We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

    We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

    Mondaq News Alerts

    In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


    A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

    Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

    Log Files

    We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


    This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

    Surveys & Contests

    From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


    If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


    From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

    *** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .


    This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

    Correcting/Updating Personal Information

    If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

    Notification of Changes

    If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

    How to contact Mondaq

    You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

    If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.

    By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions