In an article published by the Energy Law Journal, McGuireWoods partner Jeremy Medovoy examined the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s longstanding preference for resolving enforcement matters through settlements and detailed how the agency’s penalty guidelines can impede that objective in complex cases involving large amounts of alleged market harm.
Medovoy served as FERC’s top-ranking enforcement attorney before joining McGuireWoods, where he represents energy companies in FERC investigations, audits and surveillance inquiries. His article, “Appraising the Value of FERC Enforcement Settlements,” was published Nov. 17, 2025, by the ELJ, an Energy Bar Association publication.
Medovoy noted that FERC’s penalty framework credits all settlements equally, “irrespective of the unique costs and risks associated with litigating each case.” He pointed out, however, that “not all settlements are of equal value.” Drawing on FERC precedents and outcomes, he explained why the penalty guidelines’ heavy reliance on loss calculations without a corresponding accounting of FERC’s litigation risk — a framework modeled on federal criminal sentencing guidelines — can produce outsized penalty ranges that stymie resolution, especially in market manipulation matters.
Medovoy proposed a straightforward fix: a tiered settlement credit calibrated to the avoided litigation risk and cost, which would better align the penalty determination process with FERC’s pro-settlement policy. By allowing an individualized appraisal of each case’s unique settlement value, “FERC will make it easier for investigations to settle, avoid protracted, wasteful litigation, and take better advantage of its pro-settlement policy benefits,” he wrote.