Sanctions

Market participants who are found in breach of the market rules or reliability standards may be subject to enforcement sanctions if MACD considers it appropriate. Such possible enforcement sanctions range from non-compliance letters to financial penalties. Persistent breaches may result in de-registration, suspension or termination of the right to participate in the market.

A key goal of enforcement is to encourage compliance which benefits the reliability of the IESO-controlled grid and operations of the IESO-administered markets. In considering the appropriate financial penalty in cases where a penalty is the chosen sanction, Chapter 3, section 6.2.7 of the market rules requires MACD to consider a range of factors such as: actual or potential impacts on the market, other participants and reliability; “the presence and quality” of the market participant’s compliance program; and other factors. Market participants who have developed effective Internal Compliance Programs (ICPs) reduce the likelihood of committing breaches and being subject to enforcement actions.

Below is a list of enforcement sanctions that have been applied by MACD.

2023 Sanctions

Genset Resource Management Inc. (“Genset”): The IESO has entered into a settlement agreement with Genset in relation to Genset’s failure to meet operating reserve obligations, and to acknowledge and comply with dispatch instructions during the period from February 19, 2013 to December 10, 2019.

The IESO has issued an order finding Genset in breach of several market rules, described in detail below. As part of the sanctions imposed for the breaches, Genset is subject to a $500,000 financial penalty, and a suspended penalty of $1,348,000 which will become payable should Genset fail to meet the terms of the settlement agreement, including in the event of failures on the part of its third-party service providers. Each portion of the financial penalty is subject to applicable taxes.

Conduct at Issue

Reliable operating reserve is critical to the effective operation of the IESO-controlled grid. Operating reserve provides electricity or a reduction in demand for that electricity that the IESO can quickly call upon in the event of an unexpected mismatch between supply and demand. If a market participant says it is available to provide operating reserve and fails to provide it as scheduled, that can impact the ability of the IESO to restore the supply-demand balance after a system event, posing a potential reliability concern.

To avoid such potential reliability issues, a market participant is required to review issued dispatch instructions, acknowledge receipt and confirm its intention to comply or not comply with each dispatch instruction, on a timely basis. Adherence by market participants to these obligations assists the IESO to maintain the reliability of the grid.

Genset worked with a third party, including with respect to the responsibility to acknowledge and comply with dispatch instructions. Genset lacked due diligence and failed to ensure that the market rule obligations were met by its third-party service provider. This was of additional concern to the IESO because Genset had previously, in 2013, been found in breach of the market rules for similar issues, and accordingly was treated as an aggravating factor in determining the amount of the financial penalty.

Market participants must be attentive to their obligations, including those applicable to them as owner, operator or registered market participant for their registered facilities. The market rules are very clear that the market participant is ultimately liable, even where it uses third-party service providers.

When served with notice of the investigation in 2020, Genset voluntarily ceased offering energy and operating reserve while it sought to address issues raised, insofar as ongoing participation in the market. This was viewed by the IESO as a prudent and constructive step.

Market Rules at Issue

Chapter 7, Section 7.5.1

Chapter 7, section 7.5.1 required Genset to ensure that its registered facility complies with dispatch instructions issued by the IESO. This obligation applied to both energy and OR offers.

Chapter 5, Appendix 5.1, sections 1.2.1 and 1.2.2

Chapter 5, Appendix 5.1, sections 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 required Genset to ensure that its registered facility was available for dispatch, as scheduled, and to be capable of achieving the ramp rate stated in its offer. Those obligations help ensure that Genset’s facility would provide the required energy during OR activations within 10 minutes.

Chapter 7, section 7.1.2A

Chapter 7, section 7.1.2A, required Genset to acknowledge receipt of its intention to comply or not comply with the dispatch instructions issued by the IESO with respect to its resource(s) within the stipulated time – 60 seconds.

TransCanada Energy Ltd. (TCE): Breach of requirements to provide true, correct, and complete information; not to mislead; to correct incorrect information; to provide information in course of an investigation.

It is a fundamental requirement for the effective operation of the IESO electricity markets that information provided to the IESO is true, correct and complete. Furthermore, it is fundamental that information provided to the IESO does not mislead or deceive the market operator. Information that fails to meet these standards must be immediately corrected. Chapter 1, sections 11.2.1 and 11.3.1 of the market rules codify these requirements.

It is similarly of central importance that requests for information made by the IESO in the context of investigations are properly complied with, consistent with the obligations of market participants under Chapter 3, section 6.2.6 of the market rules.

On September 15, 2023, the IESO, through its Market Assessment and Compliance Division (MACD), completed two investigations of TCE and found it breached these market rules, resulting in cumulative penalties of $3.72 million (and over $9 million in ineligible costs recovered), as further described below.

Investigation Re: Breaches of Chapter 1, Sections 11.2.1 and 11.3.1 of the Market Rules

Following an investigation, the IESO determined that TCE submitted claims for amounts it was not entitled to and did not correct those claims, which resulted in millions of dollars of payments TCE was not eligible to receive. The IESO found multiple breaches of Chapter 1, sections 11.2.1 and 11.3.1 of the market rules and issued a non-compliance letter and financial penalty in the amount of $3.5 million to TCE. The IESO has also recovered the ineligible amounts TCE claimed.

Overview

TCE was a participant in the Real-Time Generation Cost Guarantee (RT-GCG) program, a program that aims to ensure sufficient generation is available to meet Ontario’s demand for electricity. The RT-GCG program reimburses generators for eligible start-up costs not recovered through the electricity market. On September 21, 2015, TCE made unusually large cost submissions. Prior to reimbursing such an amount, the IESO immediately reached out to TCE to confirm it was not in error. Having the amount of the cost submissions confirmed by TCE, the IESO reimbursed TCE’s claimed costs in accordance with the RT-GCG program rules in place at the time.

The IESO, through its Market Assessment and Compliance Division (MACD), subsequently audited these cost submissions. It was not until later that TCE acknowledged, in the context of MACD’s investigation, the extent of the ineligible cost claims, which ultimately included over $9 million in ineligible costs, forming the vast majority of the costs submitted.

The IESO treats the accuracy of market participants’ cost submissions to its reimbursement programs very seriously. At a minimum, the IESO expects market participants to thoroughly review program requirements and verify cost eligibility prior to submitting any costs for reimbursement. This is reflected in the IESO’s general requirements for information quality set out in Chapter 1, sections 11.2.1 and 11.3.1 of the market rules, requiring that information provided to the IESO be true, correct, complete, not misleading, not deceptive, and also requiring prompt notification to the IESO upon discovery that any information already provided does not meet this standard.

Findings

The IESO determined that TCE’s cost submissions were not true, correct and complete to the best of its knowledge, based upon the information available to it at the time of the cost submissions. The IESO further determined that TCE’s cost submissions were knowingly and recklessly misleading or deceptive. In addition, the IESO has determined that TCE failed to rectify the situation and correct the untrue, incorrect, incomplete, misleading or deceptive information on a timely basis.

TCE’s conduct leading up to and following the cost submissions was a highly aggravating factor in the IESO’s assessment of penalty. TCE was aware of ineligible cost claims that were included in its September 21, 2015 cost submissions, and failed to disclose them for years, doing so only long after MACD took action. TCE had the obligation to immediately rectify the over-claims and it did not do so on a timely basis.

As a result of MACD’s actions, the IESO has recovered all ineligible amounts in full and TCE has been ordered to pay a penalty in the amount of $3.5 million.

Investigation Re: Breach of Chapter 3, Section 6.2.6

In the course of investigating TCE’s compliance with Chapter 1, sections 11.2.1 and 11.3.1 of the market rules, the IESO issued a request for information to TCE pursuant to Chapter 3 of the market rules. Following further investigation, the IESO determined that TCE failed to comply with that request for information by omitting relevant information, failing to provide information or refusing to provide information.

The IESO further issued another non-compliance letter and financial penalty in the amount of $220,000 to TCE in respect of its failure to comply properly with the request for information.

ArcelorMittal Dofasco G.P. (“Dofasco”): The IESO has entered into a settlement agreement with Dofasco in relation to matters under investigation, for which the IESO determined breaches of the following Market Rules during the period from January 1, 2012 to June 28, 2022 at which time Dofasco ceased to participate in the operating reserve (“OR”) market (“relevant period”):

  • Chapter 1, section 14.3.1;
  • Chapter 3, section 6.2.9; and
  • Chapter 7, sections 3.3.8, 7.4.2, 7.5.1 and 7.5.2.

Pursuant to the settlement agreement, Dofasco has not admitted any such breaches or violation of the Market Rules.

Pursuant to Chapter 3, section 6.2.7 of the Market Rules, the IESO has issued a non-compliance letter to Dofasco regarding the breaches cited above.

As part of the settlement agreement, Dofasco has agreed to the recovery by the IESO of certain OR standby payments received by Dofasco during the relevant period, totalling $5,200,000, to reconcile OR payments made in respect of OR schedules, to actual OR delivered, as contemplated by Chapter 9, section 3.8.1 of the Market Rules. Dofasco has also agreed to pay a $500,000 financial penalty as part of the settlement agreement.

Dofasco and the IESO worked constructively through the dispute resolution process to resolve the matters at issue. The IESO acknowledges that Dofasco did not appear to intentionally breach the Market Rules, as it was under the good faith belief that it was operating in full compliance with the terms of its exemption and the Market Rules since 2004.

For its part, Dofasco is working cooperatively with IESO in the process to reconsider its dispatchable load exemption from the Market Rules.

2022 Sanctions

Hydro One Networks Inc. (“Hydro One”): The IESO has entered into a Settlement Agreement with Hydro One regarding an event that occurred at the Hydro One owned Bowmanville Switching Station in connection with a planned maintenance outage at the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station. The IESO commenced an investigation of Hydro One’s actions with respect to this event, alleging, among other things, that Hydro One had failed to be familiar with the purpose and limitations of the relevant OPG-owned electrical protective relay scheme that protected a Hydro One H2 stub bus, which is a small section of the H2 bus at the Bowmanville Switching Station. As a result of this event, the H2 stub bus at the Bowmanville Switching Station operated without protection from on or about October 19, 2016 to on or about March 24, 2017 without incident. The IESO concluded that this lack of protection coverage presented a significant market and electrical reliability concern, with a low probability of occurrence.

Upon becoming aware of the event on March 24, 2017, Hydro One immediately removed the H2 stub bus from service and worked with OPG to reconnect the requisite protection before returning the H2 stub bus to service on March 31, 2017. Following its own investigation into the event, Hydro One also took immediate actions to update its alarming and operating diagrams for the H2 stub bus in an effort to prevent a future re-occurrence of this event. Hydro One obtained no benefit from the event.

Pursuant to Chapter 3 of the Market Rules, the IESO issued a sanction assessment and notice of non-compliance on March 16, 2022 in relation to the event, notifying Hydro One that the IESO had determined that Hydro One breached the following Market Rules:

  • Market Rule, Chapter 5, section 3.4.2, NERC reliability standard, PRC-001-1.1(ii), R1;
  • Market Rule, Chapter 5, section 3.4.2, NPCC Directory #4, section 5.2.1;
  • Market Rule, Chapter 5, section 3.4.1.3; and
  • Market Rule, Chapter 5, section 3.4.1.4.

To resolve this matter with the IESO, Hydro One has acknowledged that it breached the above Market Rules and has agreed to pay a financial penalty of CDN $1 million plus applicable taxes.

Independent Electricity System Operator (“IESO”): On July 6, 2022, the IESO was sanctioned by the Market Assessment and Compliance Division (“MACD”) of the IESO for considering internal transmission constraints in determining intertie flow limits in the market schedule, which is not authorized by the Market Rules. The IESO is treated as if it were a market participant for the purpose of compliance with its obligations under the Market Rules and is subject to MACD’s jurisdiction for that reason.

Starting on August 23, 2021, the IESO decreased intertie scheduling limits in the export direction in both the constrained and unconstrained sequences at the Minnesota and Manitoba interfaces in order to manage internal transmission limitations in the Northwest of Ontario. Those export intertie scheduling limits were initially set to 0 MW and have subsequently been increased, but have largely remained below the historical scheduling limits of each intertie.

MACD determined that, in taking internal transmission constraints into account in setting these intertie flow limits, the IESO violated sections 4.4.4.2 and 4.5.1.1 of Chapter 7 as well as section 7.5.1 of Appendix 7.5 of the market rules.

As a result of these breaches, the following sanctions were issued to the IESO: (i) a letter of non-compliance; and (ii) a financial penalty in the amount of $10,000. In assessing the issuance of a financial penalty, MACD considered a number of factors, including its findings that:

  • the manner by which the IESO took the action was insufficient in terms of providing clarity of purpose and authority underpinning it;
  • the action has had a material impact on the IESO-administered markets, including impacts to some market participants, impacts on the Transmission Rights markets, and other market efficiency impacts, that would otherwise not have manifested had the IESO not taken the unauthorized action; and
  • the action did not have any material impact on the IESO’s ability to maintain reliability of the IESO-controlled grid.

Overall, MACD determined that a moderate financial penalty of $10,000 was appropriate and consistent with MACD’s practice when sanctioning the IESO, given its non-profit status.

MACD is aware that, following the decrease in intertie scheduling limits starting on August 23, 2021, the IESO proposed amendments to the market rules regarding the setting of intertie flow limits. MACD’s determination of market rule breaches and resulting sanctions on the IESO in this matter is based on a determination of non-compliance with the existing market rules in force.

2021 Sanctions

Alectra Utilities Corporation ("Alectra"): On September 7, 2021, pursuant to Chapter 3 of the Market Rules, the IESO issued a letter of non-compliance to Alectra and imposed a financial penalty in the amount of $269,000 for breaches of Chapter 1, section 11.3.1 and Chapter 6, sections 4.1.1.10, 7.1.1, 7.1.7 and 11.1.2 of the Market Rules. The IESO also ordered Alectra to provide copies of instrument transformer checks and IESO audit reports to the distributor whose system the relevant facility was connected to. 

The investigation revealed that instrument transformer checks were not conducted within the timelines provided for in the Market Rules, and that an instrument transformer had been malfunctioning for an 11-year period, May 4, 2005 to March 30, 2016, resulting in a significant underpayment by Alectra and a corresponding overpayment by other market participants. The majority of the under and overpayments were reversed through the IESO’s resettlement process.

The IESO also found that the metered market participant had failed to provide copies of instrument transformer checks and IESO audit results to the distributor whose system the relevant facility was connected to; that the metered market participant had failed to correct, in a timely manner, information found to be incorrect or incomplete during an IESO audit; and that the metering installation was not in compliance with the ANSI/IEEE Guide for Grounding of Instrument Transformer Secondary Circuits and Cases. 

The IESO acknowledges that the substantive breaches in this matter occurred while Alectra's predecessor(s) were the registered market participants for the malfunctioning metering installation. The IESO is satisfied that Alectra’s fulfilment of all ordered actions resolves all matters which were the subject of this investigation.

2020 Sanctions

Citigroup Energy Canada ULC (“CECU”): On December 16, 2020, pursuant to Chapter 3 of the market rules, the IESO issued to CECU a non-compliance letter and ordered the adjustment of settlement amounts to recover from CECU a total of $378,254 for breaches of Chapter 7, section 7.5.8A of the market rules. During the period from January 4, 2012 to January 7, 2018, CECU failed to schedule some promised import and/or export energy at the Michigan-Ontario, Minnesota-Ontario and New York-Ontario borders.  

When a market participant fails to schedule cross-border energy other than for bona fide and legitimate reasons, they may avoid paying certain settlement amounts and/or may receive unwarranted payments. Failed cross-border trades cause adverse impacts in the IESO-administered markets. For example, avoided payments can result in settlement shortfalls and, in turn, higher costs to consumers. The market rules provide for the adjustment of settlement amounts, including the recovery of avoided settlement amounts and payments received due to cross-border trade failures that are within a market participant’s control.  

 

2018 Sanctions

The Independent Electricity System Operator (“IESO”) has approved a settlement with Toronto Hydro-Electric System Limited (“Toronto Hydro”) regarding a compliance investigation into Toronto Hydro’s metering installations. 

The IESO has found Toronto Hydro in breach of Chapter 6, section 4.4.5 of the Market Rules for failing to upgrade 57 metering installations in accordance with the timelines prescribed by the Market Rules. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Toronto Hydro will pay a penalty of $198,000.00. Further, Toronto Hydro will bring the 25 outstanding metering installations into compliance with the Market Rules in accordance with an established schedule. If Toronto Hydro fails to bring its outstanding metering installations into compliance with the Market Rules in accordance with the schedule, the IESO may order Toronto Hydro to complete the requisite upgrades and impose further penalties of up to $20,000 per metering installation.  Finally, Toronto Hydro will provide quarterly reports to update the IESO on its progress in bringing the outstanding metering installations into compliance with the Market Rules.

As of January 2020, Toronto Hydro has brought all outstanding metering installations into compliance with the Market Rules.

2015
  1. Goreway Station Partnership ("Goreway"):  On December 15, 2015, pursuant to Chapter 3 of the market rules, the IESO issued a non-compliance letter and financial penalty in the amount of $10,000,000 to Goreway, for breach of the requirements of Chapter 1, section 11.2.1 and section 11.3.1 of the market rules in relation to cost submissions made by Goreway under generation cost guarantee program(s) during the period June 10, 2009 to March 31, 2013.

The methodology or methodologies Goreway used to calculate its short-term operating and maintenance costs for the purpose of its cost submissions during the period created monthly differences between submitted costs and actual costs, resulting in $12,000,000 in overpayment for such costs during the period, which Goreway has agreed to remedy by repayment in full of that amount, in addition to the financial penalty imposed.

In this regard, the IESO has determined that the information that Goreway included in its submissions was not true, correct and complete to the best of its knowledge based upon the information available to it at the time of the cost submission(s). The IESO has further determined that, due to its failure to exercise sufficient due diligence regarding its cost submissions during the period, Goreway failed to correct the untrue, incorrect or incomplete information that it had submitted to the IESO as quickly as it reasonably could and ought to have done, and failed to provided true, correct and complete information on a timely basis.

Without acknowledging or admitting any breach of the market rules, Goreway has accepted, without contest, the IESO's determinations.

2014

  1. Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO): On December 19, 2014, the IESO was sanctioned for failing to comply with four North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) reliability standards on two separate dates. The four standards – TOP-002-2b R6, TOP-002-2b R10, IRO-005- 3a R1.3 and TOP-002-2b R19 – relate to the IESO’s functions as Transmission Operator, Balancing Authority and Reliability Coordinator.

    The IESO self-reported that on March 26, 2012 they failed to account for all potential contingencies – or unplanned system events – involving power system elements in the Bruce area when they developed and implemented an operating plan. The error occurred as the IESO prepared for a planned transmission outage. As a result of this oversight, the IESO failed to recognize and prepare for a post- contingency system configuration that might have compromised reliability of the bulk power system, if the contingency had occurred. Although these breaches did not have an impact on reliability in real time, they exposed the power system to increased risk.

    The IESO also self-reported that on April 27, 2012 they failed to maintain accurate computer models utilized for analyzing and planning system operations. Specifically, a contingency that should have been modelled was not included in the IESO’s Security Analysis program as required by the standard. This omission resulted in the IESO not preparing for the generation loss associated with the most severe single contingency that could affect the system. This failure had no actual impact on reliability as contingency conditions did not materialize in real time.

    MACD’s assessed sanction for these two events was reduced to a $16,000 penalty after consideration of all relevant penalty factors. The main mitigating factor was the IESO's proactive self-report in these matters. In addition, MACD considered the significant costs incurred by the IESO in respect of the voluntary implementation of mitigation plans and other additional compliance measures following these events. Spending on these measures totalled more than $800,000. The measures are intended to reduce the likelihood of similar events and strengthen the controls used by the IESO to manage Bruce-area outages. In keeping with MACD’s primary objective of fostering reliability via compliance with the market rules, these investments serve as the most effective vehicle.

  2. Hydro One Networks Inc. ("Hydro One"): In the period from 2005 to 2008, Hydro One failed to sufficiently complete the testing of critical components for its key facilities in accordance with the Northeast Power Coordinating Council criteria and the market rules. The test failure rates for testing critical components associated with key facilities varied between 1.5% and 29%. Hydro One was issued a suspended order to pay a financial penalty of $90,000 for the four years of non-compliance, taking into account that Hydro One became fully compliant before the conclusion of the investigation. During the course of these investigations, MACD and Hydro One discussed the benefits of Hydro One improving its compliance with reliability standards and the market rules through enhancements to Hydro One's Internal Compliance Program, and Hydro One voluntarily committed to doing so.

    Given the importance of Hydro One's role and function as a key owner and operator of transmission systems in Ontario, MACD and Hydro One jointly developed criteria and measures designed to enhance the quality of Hydro One's Internal Compliance Program.

    In order to allow Hydro One time to improve its ICP in accordance with all the measures, payment of the financial penalty was suspended until April 30, 2014. Hydro One has since taken steps to successfully improve its Internal Compliance Program in accordance with most of the measures to the satisfaction of MACD, resulting in a $65,000 reduction of the original $90,000 financial penalty.

  3. Ontario Power Generation was sanctioned $21,500 for failing to comply with dispatch instructions for operating reserve activations on 5 occasions over the period July 2010 to December 2010. The breaches were in relation to generation facilities at Beck 2 PGS, Holden GS, Lennox GS and Madawaska River Aggregate. Final breach determinations were established by and sanctions were agreed to pursuant to settlement discussions, subsequent initiation of a dispute by OPG.

  4. Brookfield Energy Marketing LP was sanctioned $47,500 for failing to comply with dispatch instructions for operating reserve activations on 14 occasions over the period July 2010 to June 2011. The breaches were in relation to generation facilities at Red Rock GS and Aubrey GS, and at generation facilities associated with the Mississagi River and the Montreal River. In levying the sanction amount, MACD took into account the fact that Brookfield Energy Marketing LP's failures were not deliberate, Brookfield Energy Marketing LP cooperated in MACD's investigation and Brookfield Energy Marketing LP has put remedial measures in place to improve its compliance with dispatch instructions for operating reserve activations.

2013

  1. Hydro One Networks Inc.: In the period from January 2004 to February 2010, Hydro One was found in breach of Chapter 4, section 7.7.3 (subsections 7.7.3.1 and 7.7.3.2) of the Market Rules for the Ontario Electricity Market ("the Market Rules"). Hydro One failed to restore the operational status and analog telemetering points to a fully operational state within time frames required by the Market Rules. No financial penalty was assessed for the breach for several reasons, primarily because of the limited actual and potential impact on reliability and the market; process improvements for communicating failed telemetry events; and completed repairs of the concerned operational status and analog telemetering points.

  2. Hydro One Networks Inc. ("Hydro One"): In the period from 2005 to 2008, Hydro One failed to sufficiently complete the testing of critical components for its key facilities in accordance with the Northeast Power Coordinating Council criteria and the market rules. The test failure rates for testing critical components associated with key facilities varied between 1.5% and 29%. Hydro One was issued a suspended order to pay a financial penalty of $90,000 for the four years of non-compliance, taking into account that Hydro One became fully compliant before the conclusion of the investigation. During the course of these investigations, MACD and Hydro One discussed the benefits of Hydro One improving its compliance with reliability standards and the market rules through enhancements to Hydro One's Internal Compliance Program, and Hydro One voluntarily committed to doing so.
    MACD encourages the development and implementation of comprehensive and effective internal compliance programs by all market participants and views these programs as paramount to the reliability of Ontario's interconnected power system through creating greater awareness of detection and prevention methods, and ensuring potential or actual breaches of reliability obligations are prevented or detected and corrected through the use of internal controls. Given the importance of Hydro One's role and function as a key owner and operator of transmission systems in Ontario, MACD and Hydro One have jointly developed criteria and measures designed to enhance the quality of Hydro One's Internal Compliance Program.
    In order to allow Hydro One time to develop and implement its Internal Compliance Program in accordance with all of the measures, payment of the financial penalty will be suspended until April 30, 2014. If Hydro One improves its Internal Compliance Program in accordance with the measures to the satisfaction of MACD, the order to pay the financial penalty shall be reduced by an amount that corresponds to the number of implemented measures. If all measures are met, the order to pay a financial penalty will be revoked entirely.

  3. GenSet Resource Management Inc.: In June 2013, GenSet Resource Management Inc. was sanctioned $13,500 for failure to comply with dispatch instructions for operating reserve activation on nine (9) separate occasions. These breaches were in relation to GenSet's Kingsville and Lauzon generation facilities. The breaches occurred between July 2010 and June 2011.

  4. Greenfield Energy Centre LP: In May 2013, Greenfield Energy Centre LP was sanctioned $19,000 for failure to comply with dispatch instructions for operating reserve activation on three (3) separate occasions. These breaches were in relation to Greenfield Energy Centre LP's Greenfield Energy Centre CGS facility (G1 to G4). The breaches occurred between July 2010 and June 2011.

  5. TransAlta Cogeneration LP: In January 2013, TransAlta Cogeneration LP was sanctioned $24,000 for failure to comply with dispatch instructions for operating reserve activation on six separate occasions. These breaches were in relation to TransAlta Cogeneration LP's Windsor facility. The breaches occurred between July 2010 and June 2011. TransAlta Cogeneration LP has also been ordered to provide evidence of the implementation and efficacy of certain mitigation measures by May 1, 2013.

2012

  1. PowerStream Inc.: In October, 2012, a letter of non-compliance was issued to PowerStream Inc. for failure to upgrade two metering installations. The breaches commenced in January 2010 and continued through to September 2011.

  2. TransAlta Generation Partnership: In September 2012, TransAlta Generation Partnership was sanctioned a total of $15,000 for failure to comply with dispatch instructions for operating reserve activations. The breaches were in relation to the Sarnia generating facility. The breaches occurred between July 2010 and June 2011.

  3. TransAlta Generation Partnership: In August, 2012, TransAlta Generation Partnership was sanctioned $31,000 for failure to comply with various NERC Critical Infrastructure Protection reliability standards. The breaches occurred between January 2010 and November 2010 and related to the failure to implement processes and have the required documentation necessary for a Critical Infrastructure Protection Program.

  4. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited: In July, 2012, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited was sanctioned $12,000 for failure to upgrade six metering installations. The breaches commenced in January 2008 and are ongoing. AECL has been ordered to bring the metering installations into compliance with the market rules on or before September 30, 2012. AECL has been further ordered to provide a status update on the upgrades to MACD by September 1, 2012 and confirmation of completion of the upgrades by October 15, 2012.

  5. Hydro One Brampton Networks Inc: In July, 2012, a letter of non-compliance was issued to Hydro One Brampton Networks Inc. for failure to upgrade two metering installations. The breaches commenced in January 2009 and continued through to September 2011.

  6. Hydro One Networks Inc.: In July, 2012, Hydro One Networks Inc. was sanctioned $6,000 for failure to upgrade one metering installation and issued a letter of non-compliance for failure to upgrade another metering installation. The breaches commenced in January 2008 and continued through to November 2009 and November 2010, respectively.

  7. London Hydro Inc.: In July, 2012, London Hydro Inc. was sanctioned $12,000 for failure to upgrade two metering installations. The breaches commenced in January 2009 and continued through to May 2011 and June 2011, respectively.

  8. Niagara Peninsula Energy Inc.: In July, 2012, Niagara Peninsula Energy Inc. was sanctioned $6,000 for failure to upgrade a metering installation. The breach commenced in January 2009 and is ongoing. Niagara Peninsula Energy Inc. has been ordered to bring the metering installation into compliance with the market rules on or before December 31, 2013. Niagara Peninsula Energy Inc. has been further ordered to provide status updates to MACD on or before December 31, 2012 and June 30, 2013, and confirmation of completion of the upgrades by December 31, 2013.

  9. Norfolk Power Distribution Inc.: In July, 2012, Norfolk Power Distribution Inc. was sanctioned $7,000 for failure to upgrade two metering installations, and for failure to ensure that each meter has been tested or verified for accuracy and sealed or re-sealed in accordance with all federal metering requirements. The breaches commenced in January 2008 and are ongoing. Norfolk Power Distribution Inc. has been ordered to bring the metering installations into compliance with the market rules on or before October 31, 2012. Norfolk Power Distribution Inc. has been further ordered to provide a status update to MACD on or before October 1, 2012 and with confirmation of completion of the upgrades by November 15, 2012.

  10. PowerStream Inc.: In July, 2012, a letter of non-compliance was issued to PowerStream Inc. for failure to upgrade three metering installations. The breaches commenced in January 2008 and January 2009 and continued through to April 2010 and December 2011, respectively.

  11. Red Rock Mill Inc.: In July, 2012, Red Rock Mill Inc. was sanctioned $3,000 for failure to upgrade a metering installation. The breach commenced in January 2008 and is ongoing. Red Rock Mill Inc. has been ordered to bring the metering installation into compliance with the market rules on or before December 31, 2013. Red Rock Mill Inc. has been further ordered to provide status updates to MACD on or before December 31, 2012 and June 30, 2013 and confirmation of completion of the upgrades by December 31, 2013.

  12. Tembec Enterprises Inc.: In July, 2012, Tembec Enterprises Inc. was sanctioned $3,000 for failure to upgrade a metering installation. The breach commenced in January 2008 and continued through to September 2010.

  13. Canadian Hydro Developers Inc.: In March 2012, Canadian Hydro Developers Inc. was sanctioned $5,000 for failure to comply with an operational instruction received from the IESO for a reliability purpose. The breach was in relation to the Amaranth wind generating facility. In addition, Canadian Hydro Developers Inc. is required to provide MACD by August 31, 2012, with proof that the mitigation measures cited in Appendix A are in place and are having the desired effect. The breach occurred in May 2011.

  14. Suncor Energy Products Inc. - Ripley.: In March 2012, Suncor Energy Products Inc. - Ripley was sanctioned $3,000 for failure to comply with an operational instruction received from the IESO for a reliability purpose. The breach was in relation to the Ripley wind generating facility. In addition, Suncor Energy Products Inc. - Ripley has also been ordered to provide sufficient evidence of the implementation and efficacy of certain mitigation measures to MACD by August 31st, 2012. The breach occurred in April 2011.

  15. CP Renewable Energy (Kingsbridge) LP.: In March 2012, CP Renewable Energy (Kingsbridge) LP was sanctioned $3,500 for failure to promptly notify the IESO of a change in status to their facility and for failure to comply with an operational instruction received from the IESO for a reliability purpose. The breach was in relation to the Kingsbridge wind generating facility. Kingsbridge has also been ordered to provide sufficient evidence of the implementation and efficacy of certain mitigation measures to MACD by August 31st 2012. The breaches occurred in April and May of 2011.

2011

  1. Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation: In August, 2011, Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation ("Gerdau") was found in breach of Chapter 7, sections 7.5.1 and 3.3.8, and Appendix 5, section 1.2.4 of the Market Rules for the Ontario Electricity Market ("the Market Rules"). Gerdau offered operating reserve which was unavailable for dispatch as scheduled. The Gerdau facility did not comply with dispatch instructions and did not submit revised dispatch data to the IESO as soon as practical. No financial penalty was assessed for the breach for several reasons, primarily because this is Gerdau's first notice of non-compliance with Market Rules. The breach occurred on March 6, 2011.

  2. Norampac Inc. - Trenton Division: In May, 2011, the Norampac Inc. - Trenton Division ("Norampac-Trenton") was found in breach of Chapter 5, section 14.1.2 of the Market Rules for the Ontario Electricity Market. Norampac-Trenton failed to provide IMO-FORM-1521, certifying that protection system maintenance and testing programs at its facility meet all applicable standards set by the Northeast Power Coordinating Council and/or the Ontario Energy Board, to the IESO. Norampac-Trenton has been ordered to submit the completed IMO-FORM-1521 by June 15, 2011. No financial penalty was assessed for the breach. The breach occurred in 2010.

2010

  1. Red Rock Mill, Inc: On October 5, 2010, Red Rock Mill, Inc. ("Red Rock") was suspended from further participation in the IESO-administered markets and from causing or permitting electricity to be conveyed out of the IESO-controlled grid other than for reasons of health and safety of Red Rock's employees and the public or for protection of the environment. The suspension order was issued in respect of failing to pay the August 2010 invoice and continuing events of default pertaining to Red Rock's outstanding margin calls.

  2. Greater Toronto Airports Authority: In August 2010, Greater Toronto Airports Authority was sanctioned $2,200 for failure to comply with dispatch instructions for operating reserve activation. The breach occurred in January 2010.

  3. Greater Toronto Airports Authority: In May 2010, Greater Toronto Airports Authority was sanctioned $3,500 for failure to comply with dispatch instructions for operating reserve activation. The breaches occurred from April 2009 to October 2009.

2009

  1. London Hydro, Inc.: In October 2009, London Hydro, Inc. was sanctioned $500 for failure to obtain the approval of the IESO prior to effecting changes to the equipment of a metering installation. An additional $1000 has been applied as London Hydro has been held financially liable for the failure of its metering service provider to complete the required commissioning tests within the required time. The rules do not permit sanctioning of metering service providers in such circumstances. Instead, pursuant to Chapter 6, section 3.1.2.2.d, the metered market participant is held liable.

  2. TransAlta Cogeneration LP: In September 2009, TransAlta was sanctioned $26,000 for repeated failures to revise dispatch data in the period from June 9th 2008 to April 12th 2009.

  3. Hydro One Networks Inc.: In September 2009, Hydro One Networks Inc. was sanctioned $4,000 for failure to obtain approval of the IESO prior to effecting changes to the equipment of a metering installation. The breach occurred in August 2008.

  4. Superior Fine Papers Inc.: On July 10, 2009, Superior Fine Papers Inc. was suspended from further participation in the IESO-administered markets and from causing or permitting electricity to be conveyed out of the IESO-controlled grid other than for reasons of health and safety of Superior Fine Papers employees and the public or for protection of the environment. The suspension order was issued in regards to continuing events of default pertaining to Superior Fine Papers outstanding margin calls. The IESO does not intend to issue a disconnection order in respect of Superior Fine Papers Inc. at this time.

  5. Independent Electricity System Operator: In April 2009, the Independent Electricity System Operator was found in breach for systematically failing to maintain total operating reserve as a result of its practice of reducing the minimum operating reserve requirement at the start of operating reserve activations for matters not defined as 'contingency events' within the market rules. No voluntary payment amount was assessed for the breach; however, the IESO is ordered to come into compliance with the market rules by October 31, 2009.

  6. Hydro One Networks Inc.: In January 2009, Hydro One Networks Inc. was sanctioned $ 5,000 for failure to conduct spot checks of metering installations (Appendix 6.1 section 1.3.2.1) in 2005. Given the passage of time since the conduct in question, this improvement was taken into account in the sanction determination.

  7. Hydro One Networks Inc.: In January 2009, Hydro One was sanctioned $45,000 for failure to conduct routine testing of metering installations in 2005. Hydro One's performance with meter register dial readings is presently at acceptable levels. Given the passage of time since the conduct in question, this improvement was taken into account in the sanction determination.

2008

  1. Ontario Power Generation Inc.: In December 2008, Ontario Power Generation Inc. was sanctioned $4,000 for failure to inform the IESO of any anticipated change in the status of a generation facility. The breach occurred in August 2008.

  2. Ontario Power Generation Inc.: In December 2008, Ontario Power Generation Inc. was assessed a financial penalty of $3,000.00 for misuse of forced outages. The breach occurred in September 2007.

  3. Hydro One Networks Inc.: In December 2008, Hydro One Networks Inc. was found in breach for failure to upgrade metering installations and meet federal metering requirements at eight installations and assessed a financial penalty of $30,000. The breaches occurred in January 2007. An order has been issued to Hydro One Networks Inc. to complete two outstanding metering installations.

  4. Ontario Power Generation Inc.: In December 2008, Ontario Power Generation Inc. was assessed a financial penalty of $3,000.00 for misuse of forced outages. The breach occurred in September 2007 and is a separate matter from the above-described first December breach finding related to OPG.

  5. Veridian Connections Inc.: In July 2008, Veridian Connections Inc. was found in breach for failure to upgrade a metering installation and meet federal metering requirements. The breach occurred in January 2007.

  6. E.L.K. Energy Inc.: In June 2008, E.L.K. Energy Inc. was found in breach for failure to upgrade a metering installation, contract a metering service provider and meet federal metering requirements. The breach occurred in January 2007.

  7. Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited-Windsor: In May 2008, Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited - Windsor was sanctioned $2,000 for failure to upgrade metering installations. The breach occurred in January 2007.

  8. Shell Energy North America (Canada) Inc.: In March 2008, Shell was sanctioned for failure to submit revised dispatch data. The breach occurred in October 2007.

  9. Dofasco Inc: In January 2008, Dofasco was sanctioned $1000.00 for failure to revise dispatch data to be consistent with outage plan. The breach occurred in October 2007.

2007

  1. Falconbridge Limited - Ontario Divisions: In December 2007, Falconbridge Limited - Ontario Divisions was sanctioned $20,000 for failure to comply with an order to upgrade four metering installations by June 30, 2007. Falconbridge Limited - Ontario Divisions has again been ordered to complete the four outstanding installations.

  2. Guelph Hydro Electric Systems Inc: In October 2007, Guelph Hydro Electric Systems Inc. was found in breach for failure to upgrade a metering installation. The breach occurred in January 2006.

  3. Hydro One Networks Inc.: In October 2007 Hydro One Networks Inc. was found in breach for failure to upgrade metering installations. The breaches occurred in January 2006.

  4. Middlesex Power Distribution Corporation: In September 2007, Middlesex Power Distribution Corporation was found in breach for failure to upgrade a metering installation and failure to reseal a meter in accordance to federal requirements. The breaches occurred in January 2006.

  5. Northern Ontario Wires Inc.: In September 2007, Northern Ontario Wires Inc. was found in breach for failure to upgrade a metering installation. The breach occurred in January 2006.

  6. North Bay Hydro Distribution Limited: In September 2007, North Bay Hydro Distribution Limited was found in breach for failure to upgrade a metering installation. The breach occurred in January 2006.

  7. Shell Canada Products: In September 2007, Shell Canada Products was found in breach for failure to upgrade metering installations. The breaches occurred in January 2006.

  8. Casco Inc.-Cardinal: In September 2007, Casco Inc.-Cardinal was found in breach for failure to upgrade a metering installation. The breach occurred in January 2006.

  9. Toronto Hydro-Electric System Limited: In September 2007, Toronto Hydro-Electric System Limited was sanctioned $4,000 for failure to upgrade metering installations by December 2005. The breach occurred in January 2006

  10. Toronto Hydro-Electric System Limited: In September 2007, Toronto Hydro-Electric System Limited was sanctioned $9,000 for failure to comply with an order to upgrade three metering installations by January 31, 2007. A supplementary order has been issued to Toronto Hydro-Electric System Limited to complete the two outstanding installations.

  11. TransAlta Cogeneration LP: In September 2007, TransAlta Cogeneration LP was sanctioned $3,000.00 for two breaches for failure to submit revised dispatch data. The breaches occurred in July, 2007.

  12. Peninsula West Utilities Limited: In September 2007, Peninsula West Utilities Limited was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to upgrade metering installations. The breaches occurred in January 2006. An order has been issued to Peninsula West to complete one outstanding installation.

  13. Hydro One Networks Inc.: In September 2007, Hydro One Networks Inc. was sanctioned $3,000 for failure to obtain approval of the IESO prior to effecting changes to the equipment of a metering installation. The breach occurred in June 2005.

  14. London Hydro Inc.: In September 2007, London Hydro Inc. was sanctioned $4,000 for failure to upgrade metering installations. The breaches occurred in January 2006. An order has been issued to London Hydro Inc. to complete one outstanding installation.

  15. Ontario Power Generation Inc.: In August 2007, Ontario Power Generation was sanctioned $2,000 for failure to submit revised dispatch data. The breach occurred in February 2007.

  16. Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. ("Kitchener-Wilmot"): In July 2007, Kitchener-Wilmot was found in breach for failure to upgrade metering installations. The breaches occurred in January 2006. An order has been issued to Kitchener-Wilmot to complete 2 outstanding installations.

  17. Ontario Power Generation Inc. ("OPG"): In August 2007, OPG was sanctioned $1000 for failure to maintain protection equipment in accordance with reliability standards set by the Northeast Power Coordinating Council. The breach occurred in June 2006.

  18. Hydro One Networks Inc. ("Hydro One"): In February 2007, Hydro One was found in breach for two occurrences for failure to maintain protection equipment in accordance with reliability standards set by the Northeast Power Coordinating Council. The breaches occurred in June 2006.

  19. Invista Canada Company, ("Invista"): In February 2007, Invista was found in breach for failure to maintain protection equipment in accordance with reliability standards set by the Northeast Power Coordinating Council. The breach occurred in June 2006.

2006

  1. Ontario Power Generation Inc.: In December 2006, Ontario Power Generation was sanctioned for failure to submit revised dispatch data. The breach occurred in September 2006.

  2. TransAlta Energy Corporation: In November 2006, TransAlta Energy Corporation was sanctioned for failure to follow dispatch instructions. The breach occurred in September 2006.

  3. Ontario Power Generation Inc.: In November 2006, Ontario Power Generation was sanctioned for failure to follow dispatch instructions. The breach occurred in August 2006.

  4. Spruce Falls Inc: In November 2006, Spruce Falls Inc. was sanctioned for failure to upgrade a metering installation. The breach occurred in January 2005.

  5. Rideau St. Lawrence Distribution Inc. (Rideau St. Lawrence): In November 2006, Rideau St. Lawrence was sanctioned for failure to upgrade metering installations. The breaches occurred in January 2005.

  6. The following is a list of market participants that have been assessed sanctions for failing to satisfy the obligation under the market rules to upgrade wholesale revenue meters whose seals expired in 2003 and 2004. 

    "Toronto Hydro-Electric System Limited (Toronto Hydro): In October 2006, Toronto Hydro was sanctioned $27,500 for failure to upgrade metering installations. The breaches occurred in January 2005. An order has been issued to Toronto Hydro to complete 13 outstanding installations."

    "Hydro Ottawa Limited ("Hydro Ottawa"): In October 2006, Hydro Ottawa was sanctioned $12,000 for failure to upgrade metering installations. The breach occurred in January 2005. An order is issued to Hydro Ottawa to complete 19 outstanding installations."

    "PowerStream Networks Inc. ("PowerStream"): In October 2006, PowerStream was sanctioned $4,500 for failure to upgrade metering installations. The breach occurred in January 2005. An order has been issued to PowerStream to complete 9 outstanding installations."

    "Oakville Hydro Electricity Distribution Inc. ("Oakville Hydro"): In October 2006, Oakville Hydro was sanctioned for failure to upgrade metering installations. The breaches occurred in January 2005."

    "Hydro One Networks Inc. ("Hydro One"): In October 2006, Hydro One was sanctioned $1,500 for failure to upgrade metering installations. The breach occurred in January 2005. An order is issued to Hydro One to complete 2 outstanding installations."

    "GBF Forging Specialists Inc. ("GBF"): In October 2006, GBF was sanctioned $ 5,000 for failure to upgrade metering installations. The breach occurred in January 2005. An order is issued to GBF to complete 2 outstanding installations."

    "Falconbridge Limited- Ontario Division ("Falconbridge"): In October 2006, Falconbridge was sanctioned $6000 for failure to upgrade metering installations. The breach occurred in January 2005. An order is issued to Falconbridge to complete 4 outstanding installations."

    "Marathon Pulp Inc. ("Marathon"): In October 2006, Marathon was sanctioned $500 for failure to upgrade its metering installation. The breach occurred in January 2005. An order is issued to Marathon to complete its outstanding installation."

    "Lanxess Inc. ("Lanxess"): In October 2006, Lanxess was sanctioned for failure to upgrade metering installations. The breach occurred in January 2005."

    "Thunder Bay Hydro Electricity Distribution Inc. ("Thunder Bay Hydro"): In October 2006, Thunder Bay Hydro was sanctioned for failure to upgrade metering installations. The breach occurred in January 2005."

    "Port Colborne Hydro Inc. ("Port Colborne"): In October 2006, Port Colborne was sanctioned for failure to upgrade metering installations. The breach occurred in January 2005.

    "London Hydro Inc. ("London Hydro"): In October 2006, London Hydro was sanctioned $6000 for failure to upgrade metering installations. The breaches occurred in January 2005. An order is issued to London Hydro to complete 4 outstanding installations."

    "American Water Services Canada Corp. ("American Water"): In October 2006, was sanctioned for failure to upgrade metering installations. The breach occurred in January 2005."

    "Horizon Electric System Limited ("Horizon"): In October 2006, Horizon was sanctioned for failure to upgrade metering installations. The breaches occurred in January 2005."

    "Kirkland Lake Gold Electric System Limited (Kirkland Lake Gold): In October 2006, Kirkland Lake Gold was sanctioned $8,000 for failure to upgrade metering installations and failure to contract with a new metering service provider. The breaches occurred in January 2005. An order has been issued to Kirkland Lake Gold to complete 2 outstanding installations."
  7.  Ontario Power Generation Inc.: In August 2006, Ontario Power Generation was sanctioned for failure to cancel (remove) offers. The breach occurred in December 2005.

  8. Hydro One Networks Inc. (Hydro One): In August 2006, Hydro One was sanctioned for failure to comply with an order to provide a compliance plan and regular progress reports of the meter spot checks it was required to conduct. The breach occurred in 2005. Statement in full.

  9. Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation - Cambridge: In July 2006, Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation - Cambridge was sanctioned $1000 for failure to follow dispatch instructions and revise schedules. The breach occurred in April 2006.

  10. HQ Energy Marketing Inc.: In July 2006, HQ Energy Marketing Inc. was sanctioned $3,525 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in May 2006.

  11. NorthPoint Energy Solutions Inc.: In July 2006, NorthPoint Energy Solutions Inc. was sanctioned $2,000 for failure to update NERC tags consistent with dispatch data. The breaches occurred in July 2005.

  12. NorthPoint Energy Solutions Inc.: In July 2006, NorthPoint Energy Solutions Inc. was sanctioned $2,000 for failure to update NERC tags consistent with dispatch data. The breaches occurred in July 2005.

  13. EPCOR Merchant and Capital L.P.: In July 2006, EPCOR Merchant and Capital L.P. was sanctioned $3,236 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in May 2006.

  14. Powerex Corp.: In June 2006, Powerex Corp. was sanctioned $1,610 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in May 2006.

  15. Powerex Corp.: In June 2006, Powerex Corp. was sanctioned $2,815 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breaches occurred in May 2006.

  16. HQ Energy Marketing Inc.: In June 2006, HQ Energy Marketing Inc. was sanctioned $7,060 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breaches occurred in May 2006.

  17. HQ Energy Marketing Inc.: In June 2006, HQ Energy Marketing Inc. was sanctioned $9,759 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breaches occurred in May 2006.

  18. HQ Energy Marketing Inc.: In June 2006, HQ Energy Marketing Inc. was sanctioned $6,834 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breaches occurred in May 2006.

  19. HQ Energy Marketing Inc.: In June 2006, HQ Energy Marketing Inc. was sanctioned $1,645 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in April 2006.

  20. Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO): In June 2006, the IESO was found in breach of disclosing confidential information. No voluntary payment was assessed for the breach. The breach occurred in October 2005.

  21. DTE Energy Trading Inc.: In June 2006, DTE Energy Trading Inc. was sanctioned $4,687 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in June 2005.

  22. DTE Energy Trading Inc.: In June 2006, DTE Energy Trading Inc. was sanctioned $24,153 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in June 2005.

  23. DTE Energy Trading Inc.: In June 2006, DTE Energy Trading Inc. was sanctioned $23,313 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in June 2005.

  24. DTE Energy Trading Inc.: In June 2006, DTE Energy Trading Inc. was sanctioned $17,680 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in June 2005.

  25. DTE Energy Trading Inc.: In June 2006, DTE Energy Trading Inc. was sanctioned $25,748 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in June 2005.

  26. EPCOR Merchant and Capital L.P.: In June 2006, EPCOR Merchant and Capital L.P. was sanctioned $2,157 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in March 2006.

  27. EPCOR Merchant and Capital L.P.: In June 2006, EPCOR Merchant and Capital L.P. was sanctioned $5,427 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in September 2005.

  28. Constellation Energy Commodities Group Inc.: In June 2006, Constellation Energy Commodities Group Inc. was sanctioned $3,904 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in May 2006.

  29. HQ Energy Marketing Inc.: In May 2006, HQ Energy Marketing Inc. was sanctioned $7,369 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breaches occurred in April 2006.

  30. Powerex Corp.: In May 2006, Powerex Corp. was sanctioned $3,835 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in April 2006.

  31. NorthPoint Energy Solutions Inc.: In May 2006, NorthPoint Energy Solutions Inc. was sanctioned $3,000 for failure to update NERC tags consistent with dispatch data. The breaches occurred in May 2006.

  32. NorthPoint Energy Solutions Inc.: In May 2006, NorthPoint Energy Solutions Inc. was sanctioned $1,500 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in May 2006.

  33. DTE Energy Trading Inc.: In May 2006, DTE Energy Trading Inc. was sanctioned $3,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in May 2006.

  34. DTE Energy Trading Inc.: In April 2006, DTE Energy Trading Inc. was sanctioned $2,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in April 2006.

  35. DTE Energy Trading Inc.: In April 2006, DTE Energy Trading Inc. was sanctioned $2,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in April 2006.

  36. DTE Energy Trading Inc.: In April 2006, DTE Energy Trading Inc. was sanctioned $2,500 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in April 2006.

  37. EPCOR Merchant and Capital L.P.: In April 2006, EPCOR Merchant and Capital L.P. was sanctioned $2,271 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in March 2006.

  38. HQ Energy Marketing Inc.: In April 2006, HQ Energy Marketing Inc. was sanctioned $8,065 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in December 2005.

  39. HQ Energy Marketing Inc.: In April 2006, HQ Energy Marketing Inc. was sanctioned $6,800 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in January 2006 and February 2006.

  40. HQ Energy Marketing Inc.: In April 2006, HQ Energy Marketing Inc. was sanctioned $7,156 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in January 2006.

  41. HQ Energy Marketing Inc.: In April 2006, HQ Energy Marketing Inc. was sanctioned $3,401 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in January 2006.

  42. HQ Energy Marketing Inc.: In April 2006, HQ Energy Marketing Inc. was sanctioned $24,216 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in March 2006.

  43. NorthPoint Energy Solutions Inc.: In April 2006, NorthPoint Energy Solutions Inc. was sanctioned $1,500 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in April 2006.

  44. Conectiv Energy Supply Inc.: In March 2006, Conectiv Energy Supply Inc. was sanctioned $5,000 for failure to update NERC tags consistent with dispatch data. The breaches occurred in March 2006.

  45. Direct Energy Marketing Inc.: In March 2006, Direct Energy Marketing Inc. was sanctioned $2,000 for failure to update NERC tags consistent with dispatch data. The breaches occurred in January 2006.

  46. DTE Energy Trading Inc.: In March 2006, DTE Energy Trading Inc. was sanctioned $1,500 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in February 2006.

  47. DTE Energy Trading Inc.: In March 2006, DTE Energy Trading Inc. was sanctioned $1,500 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in March 2006.

  48. DTE Energy Trading Inc.: In March 2006, DTE Energy Trading Inc. was sanctioned $2,000 for failure to update NERC tags consistent with dispatch data. The breaches occurred in March 2006.

  49. DTE Energy Trading Inc.: In March 2006, DTE Energy Trading Inc. was sanctioned $3,000 for failure to update NERC tags consistent with dispatch data. The breaches occurred in February 2006.

  50. EPCOR Merchant and Capital L.P.: In March 2006, EPCOR Merchant and Capital L.P. was sanctioned $1,824 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in March 2006.

  51. EPCOR Merchant and Capital L.P.: In March 2006, EPCOR Merchant and Capital L.P. was sanctioned $3,230 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in March 2006.

  52. EPCOR Merchant and Capital L.P.: In March 2006, EPCOR Merchant and Capital L.P. was sanctioned $3,283 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in February 2006.

  53. Northpoint Energy Solutions Inc.: In March 2006, Northpoint Energy Solutions Inc. was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to update NERC tags consistent with dispatch data. The breaches occurred in February 2006.

  54. NorthPoint Energy Solutions Inc.: In March 2006, NorthPoint Energy Solutions Inc. was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in March 2006.

  55. NorthPoint Energy Solutions Inc.: In March 2006, NorthPoint Energy Solutions Inc. was sanctioned $3,000 for failure to update NERC tags consistent with dispatch data. The breaches occurred in March 2006.

  56. Powerex Corp.: In March 2006, Powerex Corp. was sanctioned $3,646 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in December 2005.

  57. Sempra Energy Trading Corp.: In March 2006, Sempra Energy Trading Corp. was sanctioned $2,256 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in July 2005.

  58. Sempra Energy Trading Corp.: In March 2006, Sempra Energy Trading Corp. was sanctioned $5,566 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in November 2005.

  59. Sempra Energy Trading Corp.: In March 2006, Sempra Energy Trading Corp. was sanctioned $9,618 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in November 2005.

  60. The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company: In March 2006, The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to update NERC tags consistent with dispatch data. The breaches occurred in August 2005.

  61. The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company: In March 2006, The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company was sanctioned $1,500 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in August 2005.

  62. The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company: In March 2006, The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company was sanctioned $1,500 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in September 2005.

  63. The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company: In March 2006, The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company was sanctioned $1,500 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in September 2005.

  64. The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company: In March 2006, The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company was sanctioned $1,500 for failure to update NERC tags consistent with dispatch data. The breaches occurred in August 2005.

  65. The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company: In March 2006, The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company was sanctioned $1,500 for failure to update NERC tags consistent with dispatch data. The breaches occurred in October 2005.

  66. The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company: In March 2006, The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company was sanctioned $1,500 for failure to update NERC tags consistent with dispatch data. The breaches occurred in October 2005.

  67. The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company: In March 2006, The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company was sanctioned $3,607 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in August 2005.

  68. The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company: In March 2006, The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company was sanctioned $6,884 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in February 2006.

  69. TransAlta Energy Marketing Corp.: In March 2006, TransAlta Energy Marketing Corp. was sanctioned $12,200 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in February 2006.

  70. TransAlta Energy Marketing Corp.: In March 2006, TransAlta Energy Marketing Corp. was sanctioned $2,000 for failure to update NERC tags consistent with dispatch data. The breaches occurred in December 2005.

  71. TransAlta Energy Marketing Corp.: In March 2006, TransAlta Energy Marketing Corp. was sanctioned $7,794 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in February 2006.

  72. MAG Energy Solutions Inc. (MAGES): In February 2006, MAGES was sanctioned $5,111 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in January 2006.

  73. Conectiv Energy Supply Inc. (CONECTIV): In February 2006, CONECTIV was sanctioned $1,500 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in January 2006.

  74. HQ Energy Marketing Inc. (MEHQ): In February 2006, MEHQ was sanctioned $41,243 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in December 2005.

  75. Northern States Power Company (NSP): In February 2006, NSP was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in December 2005.

  76. DTE Energy Trading Inc. (DTEET): In February 2006, DTEET was sanctioned $1,500 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in February 2006.

  77. DTE Energy Trading Inc. (DTEET): In February 2006, DTEET was sanctioned $5,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in February 2006.

  78. HQ Energy Marketing Inc. (MEHQ): In January 2006, MEHQ was sanctioned $5,287 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in November 2005.

  79. Northern States Power Company (NSP): In January 2006, NSP was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in October 2005.

  80. Sempra Energy Trading Corp. (SEMPRA): In January 2006, SEMPRA was sanctioned $71,336 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in October 2005.

  81. Sempra Energy Trading Corp. (SEMPRA): In January 2006, SEMPRA was sanctioned $3,561 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in October 2005.

  82. Sempra Energy Trading Corp. (SEMPRA): In January 2006, SEMPRA was sanctioned $22,599 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in October 2005.

  83. Powerex Corp. (POWEREX): In January 2006, POWEREX was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in September 2005.

  84. Sempra Energy Trading Corp. (SEMPRA): In January 2006, SEMPRA was sanctioned $21,003 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in September 2005.

  85. Sempra Energy Trading Corp. (SEMPRA): In January 2006, SEMPRA was sanctioned $47,169 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in September 2005.

  86. Northern States Power Company (NSP): In January 2006, NSP was sanctioned $1,500 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in September 2005.

  87. Northern States Power Company (NSP): In January 2006, NSP was sanctioned $1,500 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in September 2005.

  88. Northern States Power Company (NSP): In January 2006, NSP was sanctioned $2,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in August 2005.

  89. Northern States Power Company (NSP): In January 2006, NSP was sanctioned $2,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in August 2005.

  90. Northern States Power Company (NSP): In January 2006, NSP was sanctioned $2,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in August 2005.

  91. Northern States Power Company (NSP): In January 2006, NSP was sanctioned $1,500 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in July 2005.

  92. Northern States Power Company (NSP): In January 2006, NSP was sanctioned $2,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in July 2005.

  93. Sempra Energy Trading Corp. (SEMPRA): In January 2006, SEMPRA was sanctioned $6,167 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in June 2005.

2005

  1. Brascan Energy Marketing Inc. (MEI): In December 2005, MEI was sanctioned $24,040 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in December 2005.

  2. HQ Energy Marketing Inc. (MEHQ): In December 2005, MEHQ was sanctioned $2,993 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in November 2005.

  3. Brascan Energy Marketing Inc. (MEI): In December 2005, MEI was sanctioned $57,168 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in November 2005.

  4. Powerex Corp. (POWEREX): In December 2005, POWEREX was sanctioned $11,123 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in November 2005.

  5. Conectiv Energy Supply Inc. (CONECTIV): In December 2005, CONECTIV was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in November 2005.

  6. Constellation Energy Commodities Group Inc. (CPSINC): In December 2005, CPSINC was sanctioned $2,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in November 2005.

  7. HQ Energy Marketing Inc. (MEHQ): In December 2005, MEHQ was sanctioned $11,082 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in October 2005.

  8. EPCOR Merchant and Capital L.P. (EMCC): In December 2005, EMCC was sanctioned $1,263 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in October 2005.

  9. HQ Energy Marketing Inc. (MEHQ): In December 2005, MEHQ was sanctioned $4,669 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in September 2005.

  10. Constellation New Energy Inc. (NEVI): In December 2005, NEVI was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in August 2005.

  11. TransAlta Energy Marketing Corp. (TEMC): In November 2005, TEMC was sanctioned $6,220 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in November 2005.

  12. Brascan Energy Marketing Inc. (MEI): In November, 2005, MEI was sanctioned $1,500 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in November 2005.

  13. EPCOR Merchant and Capital L.P. (EMCC): In November 2005, EMCC was sanctioned $3,453 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in October 2005.

  14. Sempra Energy Trading Corp. (SEMPRA): In November 2005, SEMPRA was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in October 2005.

  15. HQ Energy Marketing Inc. (MEHQ): In November 2005, MEHQ was sanctioned $32,660 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in October 2005.

  16. HQ Energy Marketing Inc. (MEHQ): In November 2005, MEHQ was sanctioned $9,419 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in October 2005.

  17. TransAlta Energy Corporation (TEC): In November 2005, TEC was sanctioned $2,000 for failure to submit dispatch data for a registered facility. The breach occurred in October 2005.

  18. TransAlta Energy Marketing Corp. (TEMC): In November 2005, TEMC was sanctioned $16,596 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in October 2005.

  19. Split Rock Energy LLC (SPLITROCK): In November 2005, SPLITROCK was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in September 2005.

  20. Constellation Energy Commodities Group Inc. (CPSINC): In November 2005, CPSINC was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in September 2005.

  21. TransAlta Energy Marketing Corp. (TEMC): In November 2005, TEMC was sanctioned $20,133 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in September 2005.

  22. EPCOR Merchant and Capital L.P. (EMCC): In November 2005, EMCC was sanctioned $3,985 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in August 2005.

  23. EPCOR Merchant and Capital L.P. (EMCC): In November 2005, EMCC was sanctioned $6,130 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in August 2005.

  24. EPCOR Merchant and Capital L.P. (EMCC): In November 2005, EMCC was sanctioned $11,593 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in August 2005.

  25. TransAlta Energy Marketing Corp. (TEMC): In November 2005, TEMC was sanctioned $21,714 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in August 2005.

  26. Constellation Energy Commodities Group Inc. (CPSINC): In November 2005, CPSINC was sanctioned $11,120 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in July 2005.

  27. TransAlta Energy Marketing Corp. (TEMC): In November 2005, TEMC was sanctioned $11,212 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in July 2005.

  28. HQ Energy Marketing Inc. (MEHQ): In November 2005, MEHQ was sanctioned $3,842 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in July 2005.

  29. HQ Energy Marketing Inc. (MEHQ): In November 2005, MEHQ was sanctioned $12,038 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in July 2005.

  30. TransAlta Energy Marketing Corp. (TEMC): In November 2005, TEMC was sanctioned $4,960 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in June 2005.

  31. TransAlta Energy Marketing Corp. (TEMC): In November 2005, TEMC was sanctioned $18,459 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in June 2005.

  32. TransAlta Energy Marketing Corp. (TEMC): In November 2005, TEMC was sanctioned $5,964 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in May 2005.

  33. TransAlta Energy Marketing Corp. (TEMC): In November 2005, TEMC was sanctioned $5,147 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in May 2005.

  34. HQ Energy Marketing Inc. (MEHQ): In November 2005, MEHQ was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in May 2005.

  35. EPCOR Merchant and Capital L.P. (EMCC): In October 2005, EMCC was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in September 2005.

  36. Coral Energy Canada Inc. (CORAL): In October 2005, CORAL was sanctioned $7,811 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in September 2005.

  37. DTE Energy Trading Inc. (DTEET): In October 2005, DTEET was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in August 2005.

  38. Coral Energy Canada Inc. (CORAL): In October 2005, CORAL was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in August 2005.

  39. TransAlta Energy Marketing Corp. (TEMC): In October 2005, TEMC was sanctioned $3,876 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in July 2005.

  40. HQ Energy Marketing Inc. (MEHQ): In October 2005, MEHQ was sanctioned $6,023 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in June 2005.

  41. HQ Energy Marketing Inc. (MEHQ): In October 2005, MEHQ was sanctioned $9,873 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in June 2005.

  42. HQ Energy Marketing Inc. (MEHQ): In October 2005, MEHQ was sanctioned $5,238 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in June 2005.

  43. HQ Energy Marketing Inc. (MEHQ): In October 2005, MEHQ was sanctioned $3,083 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in May 2005.

  44. HQ Energy Marketing Inc. (MEHQ): In October 2005, MEHQ was sanctioned $4,008 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in May 2005.

  45. HQ Energy Marketing Inc. (MEHQ): In October 2005, MEHQ was sanctioned $3,148 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in May 2005.

  46. DTE Energy Trading Inc. (DTEET): In October 2005, DTEET was sanctioned $2,073 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in May 2005.

  47. EPCOR Merchant and Capital L.P. (EMCC): In September 2005, EMCC was sanctioned $2,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in May 2005.

  48. Brascan Energy Marketing Inc. (MEI): In September 2005, MEI was sanctioned $30,087.36 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in July 2005.

  49. Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO): In August 2005, IESO was found in breach of failure to establish, for each such eligible prudential support provider, an aggregate limit of the prudential support which can be provided by each organization. The duration of the breach was two months and it was remedied in August 2005. No voluntary payment was assessed for the breach.

  50. TransAlta Cogeneration LP (TransAlta): In August 2005, TransAlta was sanctioned $2,000 for failure to notify and seek approval for an extension to an outage and failure to submit revised dispatch data. The breach occurred in June 2005.

  51. Kirkland Lake Power Corp. (Kirkland Lake): In August 2005, Kirkland Lake was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to seek final approval before taking an outage. The breach occurred in June 2005.

  52. Powerex Corp (Powerex): In August 2005, Powerex was sanctioned $2,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in May 2005.

  53. TransAlta Energy Marketing Corp. (TEMC): In August 2005, TEMC was sanctioned $2,787 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. This breach of Chapter 7, section 7.5.8A of the market rules occurred in May 2005.

  54. Ontario Power Generation Inc. (OPG): In July 2005, OPG was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to submit to the IESO revised dispatch data in a timely manner. The breach occurred in May 2005.

  55. Northern States Power Company (NSP): In July 2005, NSP was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in May 2005.

  56. Brascan Energy Marketing Inc. (BEMI): In July 2005, BEMI was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in May 2005.

  57. DTE Energy Trading Inc. (DTEET): In July 2005, DTEET was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in May 2005.

  58. Epcor Merchant and Capital L.P. (EMCC): In July 2005, EMCC was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in May 2005.

  59. Northern States Power Company (NSP): In July 2005, NSP was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in April 2005.

  60. Brascan Energy Marketing Inc. (BEMI): In July 2005, BEMI was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in April 2005.

  61. DTE Energy Trading Inc. (DTEET): In July 2005, DTEET was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in March 2005.

  62. Epcor Merchant and Capital L.P. (EMCC): In June 2005, EMCC was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in April 2005.

  63. Direct Energy Marketing Inc. (DEMI): In June 2005, DEMI was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in April 2005.

  64. Powerex Corp (Powerex): In June 2005, Powerex was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in March 2005.

  65. Brascan Energy Marketing Inc. (BEMI): In May 2005, BEMI was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in February 2005.

  66. Coral Energy Canada Inc. (Coral): In May 2005, Coral was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in March 2005.

  67. DTE Energy Trading Inc. (DTEET): In May 2005, DTEET was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in February 2005.

  68. TransAlta Energy Corporation (TransAlta): In April 2005, TransAlta was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to follow dispatch instructions and failure to submit revised dispatch data when the pre-dispatch schedule differed from the quantity it reasonably expected to deliver. The breach occurred in March 2005.

  69. TransAlta Cogeneration LP (TransAlta): In March 2005, TransAlta was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to submit dispatch data indicating the amount of energy that TransAlta reasonably expected to be providing. The breach occurred in February 2005.

  70. Ontario Power Generation Inc. (OPGI): In March 2005, OPGI was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to promptly inform the IESO of any change or anticipated change in the status of any generation facility that could have an effect on the IESO-controlled grid. The breach occurred in January 2005.

  71. Powerex Corp. (Powerex): In March 2005, Powerex was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in January 2005.

  72. Northern States Power Company (NSP): In March 2005, NSP was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in January 2005.

  73. Kirkland Lake Power Corp. (Kirkland Lake): In March 2005, Kirkland Lake was sanctioned for failure to pass an operating reserve activation test. The breach occurred in December 2004.

  74. Ontario Power Generation Inc. (OPG): In March 2005, OPG was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to comply with dispatch instructions. The breach occurred in December 2004.

  75. Market Assessment and Compliance Division (MACD) of the Independent Electricity System Operator: In March 2005, MACD was sanctioned for disclosing confidential information to a person not permitted to receive the confidential information. The breach, which occurred in January 2005, was the communication of details of an alleged breach by one market participant to another market participant.

  76. Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO): In March 2005, IESO was assessed $1,000 for failure to ensure that the metering registry contained the information provided by the metering service provider in accordance with the applicable totalization table. The initial breach occurred in April 2002 and continued until October 2003.

  77. Hydro One Networks Inc. (Hydro One): In March 2005, Hydro One was sanctioned $6,000 for failure to conduct routine testing of metering installations in 2003. Statement in full.

  78. HQ Energy Marketing Inc. (MEHQ): In February 2005, MEHQ was sanctioned $8,756 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. This breach of Chapter 7, section 7.5.8A of the market rules occurred in October 2004.

  79. Brascan Energy Marketing Inc. (Brascan): In January 2005, Brascan was sanctioned $4,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in December 2004.

  80. Powerex Corp. (Powerex): In January 2005, Powerex was sanctioned $4,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in November 2004.

  81. Brascan Energy Marketing Inc. (Brascan): In January 2005, Brascan was sanctioned $3,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in November 2004.

  82. DTE Energy Trading Inc. (DTE): In January 2005, DTE was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in October 2004.

2004

  1. Brascan Energy Marketing Inc. (Brascan): In December 2004, Brascan was sanctioned $2,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in October 2004.

  2. Brascan Energy Marketing Inc. (Brascan): In December 2004, Brascan was sanctioned $14,937 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. This breach of Chapter 7, section 7.5.8A of the market rules occurred in October 2004.

  3. Split Rock Energy LLC (Split Rock): In December 2004, Split Rock was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in October 2004.

  4. Sempra Energy Trading Group (Sempra): In December 2004, Sempra was sanctioned $44,613 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. This breach of Chapter 7, section 7.5.8A of the market rules occurred in May 2004.

  5. Sempra Energy Trading Corp (Sempra): In November 2004, Sempra was sanctioned $2,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in October 2004.

  6. Powerex Corp. (Powerex): In November 2004, Powerex was sanctioned $3,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in October 2004.

  7. Brascan Energy Marketing Inc. (Brascan): In November 2004, Brascan was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in October 2004.

  8. The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO): In November 2004, the IESO was assessed $2,000 for failure to issue dispatch instructions for each registered facility at the start of each dispatch interval. The breach occurred in October 2004.

  9. Sempra Energy Trading Corp (Sempra): In November 2004, Sempra was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in September 2004.

  10. Conectiv Energy Supply Inc. (Conectiv): In October 2004, Conectiv was sanctioned $2,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in September 2004.

  11. Epcor Merchant and Capital L.P. (Epcor): In October 2004, Epcor was sanctioned $3,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in September 2004.

  12. Powerex Corp. (Powerex): In October 2004, Powerex was sanctioned $2,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in September 2004.

  13. Hydro One Networks Inc. (Hydro One): In October 2004, Hydro One was sanctioned $50,000 for failure to conduct routine testing of metering installations in 2003. Statement in full.

  14. Hydro One Networks Inc. (Hydro One): In October 2004, Hydro One was sanctioned $6,000 for failure to provide and keep meter point documentation current. This breach occurred in March 2001. Statement in full.

  15. Erie Thames Services Corp (ETSC): In October 2004, ETSC was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to conduct data reconciliation and meter spot checks in a timely manner. The breach occurred in the year 2003.

  16. Hamilton Hydro Inc.(Hamilton Hydro): In September 2004, Hamilton Hydro was sanctioned for failure to conduct data reconciliation in a timely manner. The breach occurred in the year 2003.

  17. Epcor Merchant and Capital L.P. (Epcor): In September 2004, Epcor was sanctioned $2,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in August 2004.

  18. Split Rock Energy LLC (Split Rock): In September 2004, Split Rock was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in August 2004.

  19. Conectiv Energy Supply Inc. (Conectiv): In August 2004, Conectiv was sanctioned $2,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in July 2004.

  20. Constellation Power Source Inc. (Constellation Power): In August 2004, Constellation Power was sanctioned $2,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in July 2004.

  21. Powerex Corp. (Powerex): In August 2004, Powerex was sanctioned $8,199 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. The breach occurred in June 2004.

  22. Hydro One Networks Inc. (Hydro One): In August 2004, Hydro One was sanctioned $2,000 for failure to upgrade a non-compliant metering installation. The breach was detected in April 2004.

  23. Brascan Energy Marketing Inc. (Brascan): In July 2004, Brascan was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in June 2004.

  24. Split Rock Energy LLC (Split Rock): In July 2004, Split Rock was sanctioned $2,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in June 2004.

  25. Split Rock Energy LLC (Split Rock): In June 2004, Split Rock was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in June 2004.

  26. Falconbridge Limited (Falconbridge): In June 2004, Falconbridge was sanctioned for failure to follow dispatch instructions. The breach occurred in April 2004.

  27. TransAlta Energy Corporation (TransAlta Energy Corp.): In June 2004, TransAlta Energy Corp. was sanctioned for failure to submit offers. The breach occurred in May 2004.

  28. Conectiv Energy Supply Inc. (Conectiv): In June 2004, Conectiv was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in May 2004.

  29. Direct Commodities Trading Inc. (DCT Inc.): In June 2004, DCT Inc. was sanctioned $2,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in May 2004.

  30. TransAlta Energy Marketing Corp. (TransAlta Energy Marketing): In June 2004, TransAlta Energy Marketing was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in May 2004.

  31. Cargill Energy Trading Canada, Inc. (Cargill Energy Trading Canada): In June 2004, Cargill Energy Trading Canada was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to update NERC tags consistent with dispatch data. The breaches occurred in May 2004.

  32. Epcor Merchant and Capital L.P. (Epcor): In June 2004, Epcor was sanctioned $2,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in May 2004.

  33. Powerex Corp. (Powerex): In June 2004, Powerex was sanctioned $2,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in May 2004.

  34. Coral Energy Canada Inc. (Coral): In June 2004, Coral was sanctioned $2,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in June 2004.

  35. Coral Energy Canada Inc. (Coral): In May 2004, Coral was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to update NERC tags consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in May 2004.

  36. Constellation Power Source Inc. (Constellation Power): In May 2004, Constellation Power was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in April 2004.

  37. Direct Commodities Trading Inc. (DCT Inc.): In May 2004, DCT Inc. was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in April 2004.

  38. Brascan Energy Marketing Inc. (Brascan): In May 2004, Brascan was sanctioned $9,174 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. This breach of Chapter 7, section 7.5.8A of the market rules occurred in April 2004.

  39. Ontario Power Generation (OPG): In May 2004, OPG was sanctioned $2,000 for failure to promptly inform the IMO of equipment removed from service. The breach occurred in March 2004.

  40. American Water Services Canada Corp. (American Water): In May 2004, American Water was sanctioned $4,000 for failure to enter into a contract with a Metering Service Provider. The breach has been recurring since January 2004.

  41. Hydro One Networks Inc. (Hydro One): In May 2004, Hydro One was sanctioned $5,000 for failure to provide an approved measurement error correction factor for a metering installation. The breach occurred between November 2003 and January 2004.

  42. Brascan Energy Marketing Inc. (Brascan): In April 2004, Brascan was sanctioned $9,384 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. This breach of Chapter 7, section 7.5.8A of the market rules occurred in March 2004.

  43. American Water Services Canada Corp. (American Water): In April 2004, American Water was sanctioned $3,000 for failure to enter into a contract with a Metering Service Provider. The breach has been reoccurring since January 2004.

  44. American Water Services Canada Corp. (American Water): In March 2004, American Water was sanctioned $2,000 for failure to enter into a contract with a Metering Service Provider. The breach has been recurring since January 2004.

  45. ERCO Worldwide, A Division of Superior Plus Inc. (ERCO Worldwide): In March 2004, ERCO Worldwide was sanctioned $2,000 for failure to enter into a contract with a Metering Service Provider. The breach has been recurring since January 2004.

  46. Epcor Merchant and Capital L.P. (Epcor): In March 2004, Epcor was sanctioned $2,029 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. This breach of Chapter 7, section 7.5.8A of the market rules occurred in January 2004.

  47. Ontario Power Generation (OPG): In March 2004, OPG was sanctioned for failure to submit revised dispatch data. The breach occurred in January 2004.

  48. HQ Energy Marketing Inc. (HQEM): In March 2004, HQEM was sanctioned $14,396 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. This breach of Chapter 7, section 7.5.8A of the market rules occurred in August 2003.

  49. Hydro One Networks Inc. (Hydro One): In March 2004, Hydro One was sanctioned $3,000 for failure to open breakers that were off potential. The breach occurred in August 2003.

  50. Hydro One Networks Inc. (Hydro One): In March 2004, Hydro One was sanctioned $5,000 for failure to test backup power generation for a registered facility. The breach was detected in August 2003.

  51. HQ Energy Marketing Inc. (HQEM): In February 2004, HQEM was sanctioned $4,000 for failure to update NERC tags consistent with dispatch data. The breaches occurred in February 2004.

  52. Ontario Power Generation (OPG): In February 2004, OPG was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to notify the IMO of a test. The breach occurred in January 2004.

  53. Sempra Energy Trading Corp. (Sempra): In February 2004, Sempra was sanctioned $2,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in January 2004.

  54. Epcor Merchant and Capital L.P. (Epcor): In February 2004, Epcor was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in January 2004.

  55. Brascan Energy Marketing Inc. (Brascan): In February 2004, Brascan was sanctioned $11,016 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. This breach of Chapter 7, section 7.5.8A of the market rules occurred in December 2003.

  56. Brascan Energy Marketing Inc. (Brascan): In February 2004, Brascan was sanctioned $7,951 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. This breach of Chapter 7, section 7.5.8A of the market rules occurred in December 2003.

  57. Powerex Corp. (Powerex): In February 2004, Powerex was sanctioned $2,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in December 2003.

  58. HQ Energy Marketing Inc. (HQEM): In February 2004, HQEM was sanctioned $2,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in December 2003.

  59. Abitibi-Consolidated Company of Canada (Abitibi): In February 2004, Abitibi was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to restore equipment within 24 hours of the discovery of an outage or defect. The breach occurred in November 2003.

  60. Brascan Energy Marketing Inc. (Brascan): In January 2004, Brascan was sanctioned $14,160 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. This breach of Chapter 7, section 7.5.8A of the market rules occurred in August 2003.

  61. HQ Energy Marketing Inc. (HQEM): In January 2004, HQEM was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in January 2004.

  62. Ontario Power Generation (OPG): In January 2004, OPG was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in December 2003.

  63. Hydro One Networks Inc. (Hydro One): In January 2004, Hydro One was sanctioned $3,000 for failure to obtain authorization from the IMO prior to making changes to a metering installation. The breach occurred in July 2003.

  64. Hydro One Networks Inc. (Hydro One): In January 2004, Hydro One was sanctioned $4,000 for failure to obtain authorization from the IMO prior to making changes to a metering installation. The breach occurred in November 2003.

  65. Hydro One Networks Inc. (Hydro One): In January 2004, Hydro One was sanctioned $2,000 for failure to inform the IMO of any change in the capability of its transmission facilities or the status of equipment. The breach occurred in November 2003.

  66. Brascan Energy Marketing Inc. (Brascan): In January 2004, Brascan was sanctioned $3,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in December 2003.

2003
  1. Ontario Power Generation (OPG): In December 2003, OPG was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to promptly inform IMO of change in generator status. The breach occurred in October 2003.
  2. Ontario Power Generation (OPG): In December 2003, OPG was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to obtain final approval from the IMO prior to taking an outage. The breach occurred in October 2003.
  3. Sempra Energy Trading Corp. (Sempra): In December 2003, Sempra was sanctioned $2,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in November 2003.
  4. Brascan Energy Marketing Inc. (Brascan): In November 2003, Brascan was sanctioned $2,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in October 2003.
  5. Powerex Corp. (Powerex): In November 2003, Powerex was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in September 2003.
  6. Hydro One Networks Inc. (Hydro One): In October 2003, Hydro One was sanctioned $5,000 for failure to inform the IMO that a metering installation had gone out of service. The breach occurred in May 2003.
  7. Conectiv Energy Supply Inc. (Conectiv): In October 2003, Conectiv was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in August 2003.
  8. Ontario Power Generation (OPG): In October 2003, OPG was sanctioned $3,000 for failure to follow dispatch instructions. The breach occurred in August 2003.
  9. Sempra Energy Trading Corp. (Sempra): In September 2003, Sempra was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to update NERC tags consistent with dispatch data. The breaches occurred in July 2003.
  10. Cargill Energy Trading Canada Inc. (Cargill): In August 2003, Cargill was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to update NERC tags consistent with dispatch data. The breaches occurred in June, 2003.
  11. Split Rock Energy LLC (Splitrock): In August 2003, Splitrock was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to update NERC tags consistent with dispatch data. The breaches occurred in June, 2003.
  12. Constellation Power Source Inc. (CPSINC): In August 2003, CPSINC was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in December, 2002.
  13. HQ Energy Marketing Inc. (MEHQ): In July 2003, MEHQ agreed to pay financial penalties totalling $118,012 for failure to schedule energy across an intertie after being accepted in the intertie schedule. These breaches of Chapter 7, section 7.5.8A of the market rules occurred 8 times during the period February through May 2003.
  14. Ontario Power Generation Inc. (OPG): In June 2003, OPG was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to prompty inform the IMO of a deviation from a dispatch instruction. The breach occurred in April 2003.
  15. Dynegy Power Marketing, Inc. (Dynegy): In June 2003, Dynegy was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in June 2003.
  16. Hydro One Networks Inc. (Hydro One): In June 2003, Hydro One was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to repair monitoring and control equipment within the required time following an outage or defect. The breach occurred in January 2003.
  17. DTE Energy Trading Inc. (DTE): In June 2003, DTE was sanctioned $1,000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in January 2003.
  18. Dynegy Power Marketing Inc. (Dynegy): In May 2003, Dynegy was sanctioned $1000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in April 2003.
  19. Brascan Energy Marketing Inc. (Brascan): In May 2003, Brascan was sanctioned $1000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in April 2003.
  20. TransAlta Energy Marketing Corp.: In April 2003 TransAlta was sanctioned $1000 for failure to update a NERC tag consistent with dispatch data. The breach occurred in February 2003.
  21. Hydro One Networks Inc.: In February 2003, Hydro One Networks Inc. was issued a sanction letter for failing to provide metering data. The breach occurred in November of 2002.
  22. Brascan Energy Marketing Inc. (Brascan): In January 2003, Brascan was sanctioned $1000 for failing to follow operating reserve dispatch instructions. The breach occurred in December 2002.