‘Witch hunt’ by regulators hits energy investor confidence
Current investigations by regulators into as many as 150 energy companies after the crises of California and Enron, amount to a ‘witch hunt’, according to a senior executive at Dynegy.
Speaking at sister publication Energy & Power Risk Management’s annual North American congress in Houston today, Cliff Hare, president of energy trading at Dynegy, said: “We see the current situation as a witch hunt in light of the Enron collapse. It’s an unfortunate word but that’s the way it looks.”
Hare added that the way Dynegy could reinvigorate investor confidence is to co-operate with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the SEC. “This is a strong and important industry,” he said. “It is prudent that allegations of wrongdoing are investigated and correct that answers are found, but this should not interfere with Dynegy and the rest of the energy industry doing the business we are here to do.”
On May 10, both Dynegy and Michigan-based energy company CMS Energy agreed to co-operate with SEC inquiries into the suspected act of buying and selling power simultaneously with each other to inflate trading volumes.
The SEC’s investigation into Dynegy’s allegedly volume-inflating trading practices has also proved cause for investor concern, but is not the only example in the market. Houston-based Reliant Energy admitted to the market on the same day that it too had bought and sold power simultaneously with an unnamed partner. The company, already under Ferc investigation for possibly illegal trading practices during the California power drought of 2000/1, has also seen its share price tumble. Reliant Energy shares were down $3.86 to $17.59 on Monday May 13 – a fall of 18%.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
EU trade repository matching disrupted by Emir overhaul
Some say problem affecting derivatives reporting has been resolved, but others find it persists
Barclays and HSBC opt for FRTB IMA
However, UK pair unlikely to chase approval in time for Basel III go-live in January 2026
Foreign banks want level playing field in US Basel III redraft
IHCs say capital charges for op risk and inter-affiliate trades out of line with US-based peers
CFTC’s Mersinger wants new rules for vertical silos
Republican commissioner shares Democrats’ concerns about combined FCMs and clearing houses
Adapting FRTB strategies across Apac markets
As Apac banks face FRTB deadlines, MSCI explores the insights from early adopters that can help them align with requirements
Republican SEC may focus on fixed income – Peirce
Commissioner also wants a revival of finders’ exemption, more guidance for UST clearing
Streamlining shareholding disclosure compliance
Shareholding disclosure compliance is increasingly complex due to a global patchwork of regulations and the challenge of managing vast amounts of data
Banks take aim at Gruenberg’s brokered deposit rule
Regulatory lawyers question need to reverse 2020 rulemaking just four years later