Skip to footer

JPMorgan Chase accused of rigging energy markets

JPMorgan Chase developed schemes to sell electricity at falsely attractive prices in Michigan and California, according to The New York Times. The market manipulation could result in JPMorgan Chase receiving penalties from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 

|
Mark Lennihan/AP/File
The lobby of JPMorgan Chase headquarters is shown in New York. The nation's largest bank is facing the possibilities of stiff penalties from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, a low-profile agency charged with regulating the sale of electricity.

JPMorgan Chase is reportedly accused of manipulating energy prices to make money-losing power plants seem profitable.

Between 2010 and 2011, JPMorgan Chase sold electricity to authorities in California and Michigan at prices “calculated to falsely appear attractive,” reads a confidential government document acquired by The New York Times.

The alleged market manipulation cost the states $83 million in excess payments.

The nation's largest bank could face stiff penalties from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), a low-profile agency charged with regulating the sale of electricity. FERC has not yet made a public statement about the investigation, but analysts suggest the regulator is likely to pursue charges. Call it the "Enron effect."

"In 2001, FERC acted as if market manipulation was a sort of boys-will-be-boys situation," Frank Lindh, general counsel at the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), said in a telephone interview. "Now, they seem to be taking it more seriously."  

While not directly involved in the current investigation, CPUC continues to seek billions of refunds from companies involved in the 2000-2001 California energy crisis, Mr. Lindh said. In that case, market manipulation caused a shortage in electricity and multiple widespread blackouts in the state. 

Enron Corp., the most infamous of the energy companies involved, used accounting loopholes to hide billions of dollars in debt from shareholders. The company's stock plummeted to less than a dollar in mid-2000 and it filed for bankruptcy in December 2001. 

The fallout pushed Congress to expand FERC's regulatory powers. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 allowed FERC to pursue market manipulation cases and impose penalties in addition to ordering refunds.

The agency has been active recently, issuing its largest fine ever to London-based Barclays Plc last December. The bank faces $488 million in penalties for a “three-part manipulative scheme” to rig energy markets.

In January, Deutsche Bank agreed to pay $1.6 million in penalties for manipulation of California power markets.

"If you’re committed to markets, you would take umbrage if people abused your discretion," said Marc Spitzer, a former FERC commissioner and partner at Washington-based Steptoe & Johnson LLP. 

It's not unusual for FERC to send warning letters to companies that are under investigation, Mr. Spitzer noted, but a lot of those cases are resolved amicably upon additional review.

"The cases where FERC votes on order to show cause reflects a small percentage of investigations that are opened."

JPMorgan has until at least mid-May to respond to the charges, according to the document reviewed by The New York Times. 

A FERC spokesman declined to speak on the matter. JPMorgan did not respond to a request for comment.  

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.
editor@csmonitor.com
Subscribe
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

QR Code to JPMorgan Chase accused of rigging energy markets
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2013/0506/JPMorgan-Chase-accused-of-rigging-energy-markets
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe