In January 2020, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) brought suit against Vitol Inc. and Federico Corteggiano in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Fed. Energy Reg. Comm’n v. Vitol Inc. and Federico Corteggiano, No. 2:20-cv-00040-KJM-AC (E.D. Cal. filed Jan. 6, 2020). FERC’s suit seeks an order from the court affirming and enforcing FERC’s Oct. 25, 2019, order assessing civil penalties against Vitol and Mr. Corteggiano. Vitol Inc. and Federico Corteggiano, 169 FERC ¶ 61,070 (2019).

As part of its defense, Vitol served the ISO with a subpoena on April 8, 2022. The subpoena seeks documents and communications across 24 broad categories:

1. FERC’s prior investigation of Deutsche Bank Energy Trading.
2. FERC’s investigation of Vitol and Mr. Corteggiano.
3. Communications between the ISO and either Vitol or Mr. Corteggiano.
4. Documents concerning FERC’s current lawsuit.
5. Locational Marginal Prices (LMPs) published at the Cragview node and internal Cragview node from Oct. 1, 2013 through Dec. 31, 2013.
6. How the ISO determined LMPs and valued Congestion Revenue Rights (CRRs) at the Cragview node, the Cowcreek node, and the Spiand1 node.
7. Differences between the Cragview node and the internal Cragview node.
8. Bids and awards for CRRs sourcing or sinking at the Cragview node, the Cowcreek node, and the Spiand1 node from Oct. 1, 2013 through Dec. 31, 2013.
9. How the ISO calculated LMPs under conditions of multiple pricing solutions (sometimes referred to as degenerate solutions).
10. Physical energy flows on the Cascade intertie from Oct. 1, 2013 through Dec. 31, 2013.
11. Energy market bids and awards at the Cragview node and Cascade intertie from Oct. 1, 2013 through Dec. 31, 2013.
12. Self-schedules at the Cragview node and Cascade intertie from Oct. 1, 2013 through Dec. 31, 2013.
13. Payments and charges for CRRs sourcing or sinking at the Cragview node, the Cowcreek node, and the Spiand1 node from Oct. 1, 2013 through Dec. 31, 2013.
14. Allocation of any shortfalls from payments made for CRRs sourcing or sinking at the Cragview node, the Cowcreek node, and the Spiand1 node from Oct. 1, 2013 through Dec. 31, 2013.
15. Outages and derates on the Cascade intertie.
16. Energy schedules and flows over the Cascade intertie in the final three months of 2011, 2012, and 2013.
17. The general phenomenon of multiple pricing solutions in the ISO market.
18. Notice to ISO market participants of conditions of multiple pricing solutions.
19. The ISO’s pricing enhancements filing with FERC in 2016.
20. Counterfactual analysis of what prices would have been at the Cragview node in the absence of Vitol’s bids at issue in the litigation.
21. Instances when a market participant submitted energy market bids at locations where it also held CRRs.
22. ISO documents addressing the permissibility of submitting energy market bids at locations where a market participant also holds CRRs.
23. ISO communications expressing an opinion about Vitol’s conduct in the ISO markets.
24. Impact of convergence bids on congestion at interties.

Section 20.4(b) of the ISO tariff permits the ISO to disclose confidential market participant information if required by subpoena but requires the ISO to notify impacted market participants prior to disclosure. This notice is that notification. An impacted market participant “may, at its sole discretion and own cost, direct any challenge to or defense against the disclosure requirement” and the ISO “shall cooperate with the affected Market Participant to obtain proprietary or confidential treatment of confidential information by the person to whom such information is disclosed prior to any such disclosure.” The court already has entered a protective order governing how Vitol and Mr. Corteggiano may use any confidential market participant information it receives from the ISO. The ISO will seek confidential treatment under the protective order for any market participant information it produces pursuant to the subpoena. The ISO will not produce confidential market participant information in response to the subpoena until at least June 10, 2022. A market participant that objects to the ISO producing its confidential information under the terms of the protective order should direct its objections to the court by June 10, 2022, and provide the ISO with notice of its objections by that date.

Please direct questions or comments to David Zlotlow, ISO Senior Counsel, at dzlotlow@caiso.com.