1016-00004 · Dunmore Energy Holdings · Testimony Preparation

petrov-testimony-prep-memo.docx DOCUMENT Finance & Banking

33 / 35 ← → ✕

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PREPARED IN ANTICIPATION OF LITIGATION

MEMORANDUM

September 6, 2023

FROM: Hannah Brinkley, Lead Associate, Calderwood & Harkness LLP

TO: Catherine Bloom, Responsible Partner, Calderwood & Harkness LLP

RE: Testimony Preparation Outline — Anastasia Petrov, Trader, MISO Real-Time Desk, Dunmore Power Trading LLC; FERC Docket No. IN23-7-000

C&H Matter Number: 1016-00004

C&H Billing Code: 71420.00001

Testimony Date: September 12, 2023

Testimony Location: FERC Office of Enforcement, 888 First Street NE, Washington, D.C. 20426

Examining Staff: Thomas Adebayo (Lead Investigator) and Christine Pham (Senior Attorney), Division of Investigations, Office of Enforcement

Testimony Authority: 18 C.F.R. § 1b.12

I. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF MEMORANDUM

This memorandum sets forth the preparation outline for the non-public investigative testimony of Anastasia Petrov, scheduled for September 12, 2023, before staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Office of Enforcement, Division of Investigations. The testimony will be conducted pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 1b.12, which authorizes Commission staff to compel testimony in furtherance of non-public investigations. Petrov has been identified by FERC Staff as a central witness in Docket No. IN23-7-000, an investigation into alleged manipulative trading by Dunmore Power Trading LLC ("DPT") in the Midcontinent Independent System Operator ("MISO") energy markets.

Anastasia Petrov is thirty-one years old and currently serves as a Trader on the MISO Real-Time Desk at DPT. FERC Staff has identified Petrov as the trader responsible for executing complementary Real-Time virtual positions that were allegedly designed to amplify congestion differentials created by uneconomic Day-Ahead bids placed by her colleague, Kyle Renfro, at the Indiana Hub pricing node. The investigation centers on the allegation that these coordinated positions constituted a manipulative scheme in violation of Section 222 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. § 824v, and 18 C.F.R. § 1c.2.

The timing of Petrov's testimony is significant. Kyle Renfro's investigative testimony was conducted on September 5, 2023, the day before this memorandum was prepared. Observations and takeaways from Renfro's session — including the key areas of Staff questioning, the overall tone and approach of the examining investigators, and the specific documents that Staff referenced and presented to Renfro — should be fully integrated into Petrov's preparation. A separate debrief memorandum from the Renfro session is being prepared and will be incorporated into the Petrov preparation materials as soon as it is finalized.

Additionally, Derek Sung's testimony is currently scheduled for September 19, 2023. Sung is Petrov's direct supervisor and the Senior Vice President of Power Marketing & Trading at DPT. Because Sung's testimony follows Petrov's, careful attention must be paid during Petrov's preparation to ensure that her characterizations of Sung's role, directives, and oversight are not inconsistent with the account that Sung is expected to provide. The consistency of testimony across all three witnesses — Renfro, Petrov, and Sung — will be a critical element of DPT's defense posture in this investigation.

This memorandum is organized as follows: Section II provides background on the witness, including her professional role, the relevant trading activity at issue, and the document productions that have been made in this matter. Section III identifies and analyzes the anticipated areas of FERC Staff questioning. Section IV catalogs the key documents that Petrov should review in advance of her testimony. Section V sets forth the recommended approach and key guidance for the testimony, including general testimony guidelines, substantive themes to reinforce, areas of concern, and coordination issues with other witness testimonies. Section VI addresses logistical matters. Section VII identifies next steps.

II. BACKGROUND ON THE WITNESS

A. Professional Role and Reporting Structure

Anastasia Petrov, age thirty-one, holds the title of Trader on the MISO Real-Time Desk at Dunmore Power Trading LLC. DPT is a Delaware limited liability company and a wholly owned subsidiary of Dunmore Energy Holdings Ltd. DPT's principal office is located at 2200 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 3100, Houston, Texas 77056. DPT's Employer Identification Number is 82-4519763.

DPT holds market-based rate authority from the Commission, granted under FERC Docket No. ER05-1128-000, which authorizes the company to engage in wholesale power sales at market-based rates in organized wholesale electricity markets, including the MISO markets that are the subject of this investigation.

Petrov reports directly to Derek Sung, Senior Vice President, Power Marketing & Trading. Sung is responsible for overall supervision of DPT's MISO trading operations and has direct oversight authority over both the Day-Ahead and Real-Time trading desks. During the Relevant Period — defined by FERC Staff as January 3, 2022, through March 17, 2023 — the MISO trading desk at DPT employed fourteen traders, including Petrov and Renfro. The organizational structure of the desk placed Day-Ahead physical generation scheduling and Real-Time virtual trading under the same supervisory umbrella, with Sung serving as the common point of authority for both functions.

Petrov's primary responsibilities during the Relevant Period included the execution of virtual transactions in the MISO markets — specifically, Increment Offers ("INCs") and Decrement Bids ("DECs") — as well as aspects of Real-Time physical dispatch management. INCs represent offers to sell energy in the Day-Ahead market at a specified price and node, with the expectation that the Real-Time price will be lower, resulting in a profit on the virtual sale. DECs represent bids to purchase energy in the Day-Ahead market, with the expectation that the Real-Time price will be higher. Virtual transactions do not involve the actual physical delivery or receipt of energy; rather, they are financial positions that settle on the difference between Day-Ahead and Real-Time prices at a given node. Virtual trading is a recognized and common practice in organized wholesale electricity markets and serves important price convergence and market efficiency functions.

B. Relevant Trading Activity

FERC Staff's investigation in Docket No. IN23-7-000 focuses on DPT's trading activity at the Indiana Hub and Minnesota Hub pricing nodes in the MISO Day-Ahead and Real-Time energy markets during the Relevant Period. The investigation was initiated following a referral from MISO's Independent Market Monitor ("IMM"), Velthorn Market Analytics, Inc., and centers on the allegation that DPT engaged in a cross-product manipulative trading scheme involving the coordination of uneconomic Day-Ahead physical generation offers, complementary Real-Time virtual positions, and Financial Transmission Rights ("FTRs").

Petrov's activities that are at issue in this investigation relate specifically to her virtual trading at the Minnesota Hub. During the Relevant Period, Petrov is alleged to have placed Increment Offers and Decrement Bids at the Minnesota Hub totaling approximately 1,620 gigawatt-hours ("GWh") of virtual volume. FERC Staff's theory of the case is that these virtual positions were not entered for the independent purpose of capturing Day-Ahead to Real-Time price convergence, but were instead designed to amplify the congestion differential created by Kyle Renfro's allegedly uneconomic Day-Ahead generation offers at the Indiana Hub.

The alleged scheme, as described in Staff's communications and data requests to date, involved the following mechanics: Renfro would submit Day-Ahead generation offers at Indiana Hub at prices alleged to be below the marginal cost of production — in some instances, offers as low as negative fifteen dollars per megawatt-hour ($-15/MWh) to negative forty dollars per megawatt-hour ($-40/MWh) — which, when accepted by the Day-Ahead market clearing process, would increase congestion on certain MISO transmission paths. Petrov would then place virtual positions at Minnesota Hub that would benefit from, or further amplify, the resulting congestion differentials between Indiana Hub and Minnesota Hub. These congestion differentials would, in turn, increase the settlement value of DPT's portfolio of Financial Transmission Rights, which had a notional value of approximately $47.3 million during the Relevant Period.

Staff's theory thus characterizes Petrov's virtual trading as part of a broader, coordinated scheme involving cross-product manipulation and physical-financial coordination — specifically, the use of uneconomic physical generation offers to create congestion that benefits both virtual positions and FTR holdings.

C. Prior Document Production Relevant to Petrov

In response to FERC Staff's data requests and subpoenas in this investigation, DPT has made two substantial document productions to date.

The first document production was completed on July 24, 2023, and consisted of 48,200 documents, bearing Bates stamp numbers DUNMORE-000001 through DUNMORE-048200. This production included trading records, position blotters, internal communications, compliance materials, and corporate organizational documents responsive to Staff's initial data request.

The second document production was completed on August 21, 2023, and consisted of 63,400 documents, bearing Bates stamp numbers DUNMORE-048201 through DUNMORE-111600. This supplemental production was made in response to FERC Staff's second data request, served August 7, 2023, which contained eighteen supplemental interrogatories. This second production focused on additional trading records, trader compensation structures, internal audit documents, and further internal communications identified through expanded search terms and date ranges.

Across both productions, a combined total of 111,600 documents have been produced to FERC Staff. Petrov was one of eleven identified custodians whose files were collected and searched in connection with these productions. Her custodial documents include trading records and position blotters for her virtual transactions, internal email communications, instant messages exchanged on DPT's internal messaging platforms, and communications with Renfro, Sung, and other members of the MISO trading desk. The e-discovery vendor engaged for this matter is Crestline Document Solutions LLC, which has managed the collection, processing, review, and production of all documents in both production sets.

It should be noted that FERC Staff will have had access to all 111,600 produced documents in the weeks preceding Petrov's testimony. Staff's examination of Petrov will likely include the presentation of specific documents from the production — particularly internal communications between Petrov and Renfro, and between Petrov and Sung — for which Petrov will be asked to provide context, explanation, and characterization. The identification of the most significant documents from the production that Staff is likely to present to Petrov is an ongoing workstream that will be finalized following the debrief of Renfro's testimony.

III. ANTICIPATED AREAS OF FERC STAFF QUESTIONING

Based on our review of the investigation record to date, FERC Staff's data requests and subpoenas, the document productions, the theory of the case as articulated in Staff's communications, and preliminary observations from the Renfro testimony session on September 5, 2023, we anticipate that Staff will explore the following topic areas during Petrov's testimony. Each topic area is discussed below, along with analytical commentary regarding the significance of the anticipated questions and the risks they present.

A. Role and Responsibilities on the MISO Real-Time Desk

FERC Staff will almost certainly begin the examination with foundational questions designed to establish Petrov's role, responsibilities, and authority on the MISO Real-Time Desk. This is standard practice in FERC investigative testimony sessions and serves both to create a record regarding the witness's background and to lay the groundwork for more targeted substantive questioning later in the session.

Staff will likely ask Petrov to describe her daily duties and workflow on the Real-Time desk, including the hours she worked, the markets she monitored, the tools and platforms she used, and the sequence of events that constituted a typical trading day. They will inquire about how virtual trading positions — specifically INCs and DECs — are originated, sized, and placed in the MISO market. This line of questioning will seek to establish whether Petrov exercised independent judgment in selecting positions or whether she operated under more specific direction from supervisors or colleagues.

Staff will also ask about the risk limits and position limits applicable to Petrov's trading book. DPT's internal risk management framework imposed certain position size limits, value-at-risk thresholds, and loss limits on individual traders. Petrov should be prepared to describe these limits accurately and to explain whether her trading during the Relevant Period operated within them. Any instances in which limits were exceeded or exceptions were granted will be of particular interest to Staff.

Approval and oversight processes will also be explored. Staff will want to understand what level of supervisory sign-off from Sung was required before Petrov could enter virtual positions — whether Sung's approval was required for each individual position, for positions above a certain threshold, for new strategies or node selections, or not at all. This line of questioning goes directly to the issue of whether a coordinated strategy existed and, if so, who directed it.

Relatedly, Staff will probe the distinction between positions that Petrov entered on her own independent initiative and positions that were directed, suggested, or influenced by others — including Renfro and Sung. This is a critical area because the manipulation theory depends in part on establishing coordination among the traders, as opposed to independent and coincidental trading.

Finally, Staff will ask Petrov to describe her understanding of how her Real-Time positions related to DPT's broader portfolio, including the company's generation assets. DPT's U.S. generation portfolio during the Relevant Period consisted of approximately 4,280 megawatts of total capacity, comprising approximately 2,650 megawatts of gas-fired generation, 1,130 megawatts of wind generation, and 500 megawatts of solar generation. Staff will want to understand whether Petrov viewed her virtual trading as connected to the management or optimization of these physical generation assets, or as a standalone profit center.

B. Virtual Trading at Minnesota Hub — Specific Transactions

This will likely be the most transaction-specific and granular portion of the examination. Staff will focus closely on Petrov's virtual trading activity at the Minnesota Hub during the Relevant Period and will seek to understand both the mechanics of her trading and the rationale behind it.

Staff will ask Petrov to explain her rationale for placing Increment Offers and Decrement Bids at the Minnesota Hub specifically. Why the Minnesota Hub, as opposed to other available MISO pricing nodes? What fundamental analysis, market observation, or other basis led her to select that node? This question is significant because Staff's manipulation theory depends on the premise that the Minnesota Hub was selected not for independent fundamental reasons, but because positions at that node would amplify the congestion differential created by Renfro's Day-Ahead offers at Indiana Hub.

Staff will probe the volume and frequency of Petrov's virtual trading at Minnesota Hub during the Relevant Period. The approximately 1,620 GWh in total alleged virtual volume represents a substantial level of activity, and Staff will likely break this down by time period, direction (INCs versus DECs), and size to identify patterns that correlate with Renfro's Day-Ahead bidding activity at Indiana Hub.

Petrov's pricing methodology will also be examined in detail. Staff will ask how she determined the price levels at which she placed her virtual bids and offers — whether she used quantitative models, historical price analysis, fundamental forecasts, or other methods. Staff will also ask about volume sizing — how she determined how many megawatt-hours to bid or offer at a given node on a given day.

The directionality of Petrov's positions will be scrutinized. Staff will want to know whether her virtual positions at Minnesota Hub were consistently directional (i.e., predominantly INCs or predominantly DECs) or whether they varied based on market conditions. A consistently directional pattern that correlates with Renfro's Day-Ahead activity at Indiana Hub would support Staff's coordination theory. Variation based on independent fundamental analysis would support the defense narrative.

Profitability will be another important area. Staff will ask about the profitability of Petrov's Minnesota Hub virtual positions, both on a standalone basis and in the context of DPT's broader portfolio. How was P&L tracked — by individual trader, by desk, by node, or by strategy? This line of questioning may reveal whether certain positions that were unprofitable on a standalone basis were nonetheless entered because they enhanced the profitability of other DPT positions, such as FTRs.

Finally, Staff will test Petrov's understanding of congestion dynamics between Minnesota Hub and Indiana Hub. This is a foundational question that goes to whether Petrov understood the market mechanics through which her virtual positions could, in combination with Renfro's Day-Ahead offers, create or amplify congestion differentials. If Petrov demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of these dynamics, Staff may use that understanding to support an inference of intentional coordination.

C. Relationship Between Day-Ahead and Real-Time Positions

This area of questioning will be the crux of Staff's examination and will directly address the coordination allegation at the heart of the investigation. Staff will seek to establish a nexus between Petrov's Real-Time virtual positions at Minnesota Hub and Renfro's Day-Ahead physical generation offers at Indiana Hub.

Staff will ask Petrov about her knowledge of Renfro's Day-Ahead bidding strategies at Indiana Hub. Specifically, Staff will want to know whether Petrov was aware that Renfro submitted negative Day-Ahead generation offers — at prices as low as negative fifteen dollars per megawatt-hour to negative forty dollars per megawatt-hour — and whether she understood that such offers were below the marginal cost of production for the relevant generating units.

Staff will then ask directly whether Petrov's virtual positions at Minnesota Hub were designed to complement, offset, or amplify Renfro's Day-Ahead positions at Indiana Hub. This is the central question of the examination, and Petrov's response will be among the most significant pieces of testimony in the entire investigation. Her answer must be carefully prepared.

Staff will probe whether there was a coordinated strategy between the Day-Ahead and Real-Time desks to create or exploit congestion differentials between Indiana Hub and Minnesota Hub. The structural fact that both desks reported to the same supervisor — Derek Sung — will be used by Staff to suggest that coordination was not only possible but likely.

Petrov's awareness of DPT's Financial Transmission Rights portfolio will be examined closely. The FTR portfolio had a notional value of approximately $47.3 million during the Relevant Period, and FTR values are directly affected by congestion patterns on the MISO transmission system. Staff's theory posits that one of the primary motivations for the alleged scheme was to increase the settlement value of DPT's FTR holdings. Staff will ask whether Petrov was aware of the FTR portfolio, whether she understood how congestion dynamics affected FTR values, and whether her virtual trading was intended to influence those values.

Staff will ask whether Petrov was ever informed — by Renfro, Sung, or anyone else — that certain virtual positions could increase the value of DPT's FTR positions. Any affirmative answer, or any document reflecting such a communication, would be highly damaging.

Staff will also explore how the Day-Ahead and Real-Time desks communicated during trading hours. Were there shared screens, open communication lines, joint morning meetings, or real-time position sharing between the desks? The physical layout of the trading floor, the communication channels used, and the information flow between the desks will all be relevant to establishing whether coordination occurred.

D. Communications with Kyle Renfro

Staff will devote significant examination time to Petrov's communications with Renfro. This topic area is distinct from the broader coordination questions discussed above because it focuses specifically on direct, bilateral communications between the two traders.

Staff will ask about the nature, frequency, and channels of communication between Petrov and Renfro. Did they communicate primarily by email, instant message, telephone, in-person conversation, or through their proximity on the trading floor? How often did they communicate about trading matters? Were their communications formal (e.g., structured position reports) or informal (e.g., casual conversations about market views)?

Staff will ask whether Renfro directed, suggested, or influenced specific virtual positions that Petrov placed at Minnesota Hub. This question addresses the critical issue of agency — whether Petrov was acting on Renfro's instructions, collaborating with him, or trading independently.

Staff will inquire whether Renfro shared his Day-Ahead bidding plans with Petrov in advance of the MISO Day-Ahead market close. If Renfro communicated his intended Day-Ahead offers to Petrov before those offers were submitted, that would support an inference that Petrov had the opportunity and information necessary to coordinate her virtual positions with Renfro's physical offers.

Staff will almost certainly present specific documents from the Bates-stamped productions — emails, instant messages, and potentially phone records — and ask Petrov to explain the content, context, and meaning of those communications. This is an area where the Renfro testimony debrief will be particularly valuable, as Staff may have presented the same or related documents to Renfro and obtained his characterization, which they will then seek to compare with Petrov's characterization.

Staff will ask whether Petrov and Renfro discussed congestion patterns, FTR positions, or the relationship between their respective trading books. Any such discussions would support the coordination theory. Staff will also ask about any communications regarding the profitability or market impact of their combined positions — that is, whether Petrov and Renfro ever discussed or analyzed how their respective positions interacted to produce gains for DPT's overall portfolio.

E. Communications with Derek Sung and Other Trading Personnel

Staff will also examine Petrov's communications with her supervisor, Derek Sung, and with other members of the MISO trading desk. The purpose of this line of questioning is to establish the degree of management involvement in and awareness of the alleged coordinated strategy.

Staff will ask whether Sung directed or approved the virtual trading strategy at Minnesota Hub. Did Sung instruct Petrov to trade at Minnesota Hub, or did she select that node independently? Did Sung set parameters for her virtual trading in terms of volume, direction, or pricing?

Staff will inquire about the frequency and nature of team meetings, morning calls, strategy sessions, or other forums in which Day-Ahead and Real-Time positions were discussed together. If DPT held regular meetings at which both desks' positions were reviewed and a combined portfolio strategy was articulated, that would support Staff's theory of a coordinated scheme directed by management.

Staff will ask whether portfolio-level trading strategies were ever presented by Sung or others that combined physical generation offers, virtual transactions, and FTR positions into a unified strategy. Any presentation, memorandum, or discussion reflecting such an integrated approach would be of high significance to Staff.

Finally, Staff may ask about communications with any of the other fourteen traders on the MISO trading desk regarding coordinated or complementary strategies. While Petrov and Renfro are the primary focus, Staff may seek to establish that the alleged coordination extended more broadly across the desk.

F. Gas Nominations and Physical-Financial Coordination

Staff may explore the relationship between DPT's gas-fired generation operations and Petrov's virtual trading, particularly as it relates to the physical-financial coordination element of the alleged scheme.

Petrov should be prepared for questions regarding her knowledge of Dunmore Midstream Partners LP ("DMP"), a separate entity with EIN 47-8831205. DMP is involved in gas scheduling and pipeline operations, and Staff may be investigating whether information from DMP regarding gas nomination timing or volumes was shared with DPT traders and used to inform trading decisions.

Staff will ask whether Petrov had any interaction with DMP personnel regarding gas nomination timing, volumes, or pricing. Staff will also ask whether gas scheduling information — including information about whether DPT's gas-fired units would actually be dispatched or available — influenced Petrov's Real-Time virtual trading decisions.

Staff may also probe Petrov's awareness of the physical gas supply arrangements supporting DPT's gas-fired generation units, including the identity of gas suppliers, the terms of gas purchase contracts, and the relationship between gas costs and the marginal cost of electricity generation at DPT's facilities. This line of questioning may be relevant to establishing whether the Day-Ahead generation offers at Indiana Hub were, in fact, below marginal cost.

G. Compliance Awareness and Training

Staff will examine Petrov's familiarity with DPT's compliance framework and her understanding of market manipulation prohibitions. This area of questioning serves to establish Petrov's state of mind and awareness of the legal boundaries applicable to her trading activity.

Staff will ask about Petrov's awareness of DPT's compliance policies during the Relevant Period, including any written compliance manuals, codes of conduct, or trading policies that governed her activity. Staff will inquire whether Petrov received any training on market manipulation prohibitions under Section 222 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. § 824v) or the Commission's anti-manipulation rule (18 C.F.R. § 1c.2). The nature, timing, and content of any such training will be explored.

Staff will ask whether Petrov was aware of Rhonda Vasquez's role as Vice President of Regulatory Affairs at DPT, and whether Vasquez served any compliance oversight or reporting function with respect to the trading desk. Staff will also ask whether Jennifer Caulfield's appointment as Chief Compliance Officer on February 6, 2023, resulted in any changes to compliance training, oversight, or reporting that Petrov experienced before the end of the Relevant Period on March 17, 2023. The timing of Caulfield's appointment — only approximately five weeks before the end of the Relevant Period — is notable and may suggest that DPT was responding to emerging compliance concerns.

Finally, and critically, Staff will ask whether Petrov ever had concerns about the legality or propriety of any trading strategy employed at DPT, and if so, whether she raised those concerns with a supervisor, compliance officer, or any other person. This question is designed to test whether Petrov had any contemporaneous awareness that the trading activity at issue was potentially improper. An affirmative answer could be highly damaging, but a denial, if contradicted by documents reflecting such concerns, could undermine Petrov's credibility.

H. Knowledge of MISO Independent Market Monitor Activity

Staff may ask Petrov about her awareness of the monitoring activities of the MISO Independent Market Monitor, Velthorn Market Analytics, Inc. Dr. Patricia Engel serves as President of Velthorn, and the organization is responsible for monitoring trading activity in the MISO markets for potential market manipulation, market power abuse, and other concerns.

Staff will ask whether Petrov was aware that Velthorn monitored MISO trading patterns, and whether she was aware of any contact from Velthorn or the IMM regarding DPT's trading during the Relevant Period. If Velthorn contacted DPT with inquiries about trading patterns before making its referral to FERC, Petrov's awareness of such contacts could be relevant to establishing that DPT was on notice that its trading was attracting scrutiny.

Staff will also ask whether Petrov was aware of the IMM referral letter dated April 3, 2023, in which Velthorn referred DPT's trading activity to FERC's Office of Enforcement. While this referral post-dates the Relevant Period, Petrov's knowledge of it may be relevant to Staff's assessment of the flow of information within DPT and the company's response to the investigation.

IV. KEY DOCUMENTS FOR WITNESS REVIEW

In advance of her testimony on September 12, 2023, Petrov should be instructed to review the following categories of documents. A comprehensive review of these materials will enable Petrov to testify accurately and with appropriate specificity regarding her trading activity, communications, and awareness of relevant events during the Relevant Period.

1. Trading Records and Position Blotters. Petrov should review her own trading records and position blotters for all virtual transactions — both Increment Offers and Decrement Bids — at the Minnesota Hub during the Relevant Period (January 3, 2022, through March 17, 2023). She should be familiar with the volume, pricing, direction, and timing of her positions, as well as the profitability of those positions on a day-by-day and aggregate basis.

2. Internal Communications with Kyle Renfro. Petrov should review all internal emails and instant messages between herself and Renfro that were identified from the custodial productions. She should be prepared to explain the content and context of each communication and should be alert to any language that could be interpreted as reflecting coordination, direction, or shared strategy between the Day-Ahead and Real-Time desks.

3. Internal Communications with Derek Sung. Petrov should review all internal emails and instant messages between herself and Sung, including any communications reflecting directives, approvals, strategy discussions, or performance reviews related to her virtual trading activity.

4. Trading Desk Policies and Procedures. Petrov should review DPT's trading desk policies and procedures that were in effect during the Relevant Period, including risk limits, position limits, escalation procedures, and any policies governing the relationship between Day-Ahead and Real-Time trading.

5. Morning Meeting Notes and Strategy Documents. Petrov should review any morning meeting notes, strategy memoranda, portfolio review documents, or similar materials that she authored, received, or participated in during the Relevant Period. These documents may reflect the articulation of trading strategies that Staff will characterize as evidence of coordination.

6. Compliance Manual and Training Materials. Petrov should review DPT's compliance manual as it existed during the Relevant Period, as well as any market manipulation training materials, compliance certifications, or related documents that she received or signed.

7. Key Bates-Stamped Documents. Petrov should review specific key documents identified from the Bates-stamped productions (DUNMORE-000001 through DUNMORE-111600) that FERC Staff is likely to present during her testimony. The list of these specific documents is to be finalized following review of the Renfro testimony debrief and should be the subject of detailed discussion during the preparation sessions. Patrick Gallagher will assist with the document review and identification of key exhibits for the Petrov preparation sessions.

V. RECOMMENDED APPROACH AND KEY GUIDANCE

A. General Testimony Guidelines

The following general guidelines should be communicated to Petrov during the preparation sessions and reinforced through mock examination exercises:

Answer only the question asked. Petrov should listen carefully to each question, answer it directly and concisely, and then stop. She should not volunteer information beyond the scope of the question, elaborate unnecessarily, or attempt to provide helpful context that Staff has not requested. Volunteered information creates additional avenues for follow-up questioning and may inadvertently introduce topics that Staff had not intended to explore.

Distinguish between personal knowledge, information received from others, and speculation. Petrov should clearly delineate what she knows from her own direct experience and observation, what she learned from others (and, if so, from whom), and what she is speculating or inferring. FERC Staff will seek to lock Petrov into statements of personal knowledge where possible, and it is important that she not overstate the basis for her testimony.

"I don't recall" is an appropriate answer when genuine. If Petrov genuinely does not recall a fact, event, or communication, she should say so. She should not guess, approximate, or speculate in order to provide an answer. At the same time, she should be aware that excessive or implausible invocations of failed recollection will undermine her credibility and may be perceived by Staff as evasive.

Do not characterize the intent or purpose of others' trading activity. Petrov should speak only to her own understanding, analysis, and actions. She should avoid offering opinions or characterizations regarding Renfro's intent in placing Day-Ahead offers, Sung's strategic objectives, or the purpose of DPT's broader portfolio management. Staff will seek to elicit such characterizations, and Petrov should resist providing them.

Assert privilege where appropriate. If a question touches on communications with outside counsel — whether with Calderwood & Harkness LLP or with Martin Llewellyn — Petrov should assert the attorney-client privilege and decline to answer without counsel's direction. Catherine Bloom will be present as counsel at the testimony and will instruct Petrov not to answer questions that implicate privilege. Petrov should defer to Bloom's instructions in all such instances and should not attempt to independently determine the scope of the privilege.

Take time before answering. Petrov should not rush to answer questions. She should pause, consider each question carefully, and formulate a complete and accurate response before speaking. This practice also gives counsel an opportunity to interpose objections or instructions before Petrov begins her answer.

B. Substantive Themes to Reinforce

Throughout her testimony, Petrov should consistently reinforce the following substantive themes, which form the core of DPT's defensive narrative in this investigation:

Legitimate arbitrage. Petrov's virtual trading at Minnesota Hub was conducted as a legitimate arbitrage strategy designed to capture the differential between Day-Ahead and Real-Time prices at that node. Virtual trading — including both INCs and DECs — is a recognized and essential function of organized wholesale electricity markets. MISO itself has stated that virtual trading promotes price convergence and market efficiency. Petrov's virtual positions were consistent with the purpose and design of the virtual trading market.

Independent fundamental analysis. Petrov's virtual positions were based on her independent analysis of market fundamentals, including load forecasts, weather conditions, transmission outage schedules, generation availability, and other factors relevant to the expected relationship between Day-Ahead and Real-Time prices at the Minnesota Hub. Her positions were not based on coordination with Renfro's Day-Ahead positions at Indiana Hub. To the extent that her positions at Minnesota Hub correlated temporally with Renfro's positions at Indiana Hub, that correlation reflected common market fundamentals, not coordination.

Congestion driven by transmission events. The congestion differentials at issue during the Relevant Period were primarily driven by transmission outage events, system conditions, and other factors external to DPT's trading activity. This theme is consistent with the economic analysis prepared by Dr. Leonard Whitfield, who has concluded that DPT's trading had a market impact of no more than $2.1 million — a figure that represents a small fraction of the total congestion observed during the Relevant Period and suggests that market fundamentals, not DPT's trading, were the primary drivers of congestion patterns.

Portfolio optimization as standard industry practice. DPT managed its generation assets, virtual trading positions, and FTR holdings as an integrated portfolio. This approach — known as portfolio optimization — is standard industry practice among power trading companies with diversified asset portfolios. The fact that DPT's various positions may have interacted to produce gains across different products does not, standing alone, establish manipulative intent. Portfolio optimization is recognized by the Commission and by courts as a legitimate commercial activity, and the existence of an integrated portfolio is not per se evidence of manipulation.

Petrov should be prepared to articulate these themes naturally and credibly, grounding them in her own experience and understanding. The themes should emerge organically from her testimony in response to Staff's questions, rather than appearing rehearsed or scripted.

C. Areas of Concern / Sensitive Topics

The following topics present the greatest risk during Petrov's testimony. Each topic is discussed below, along with an assessment of the potential harm and recommended approach.

Communications reflecting coordination with Renfro. Any communications — whether email, instant message, or otherwise — in which Renfro explicitly discussed the intended impact of his Day-Ahead bidding on congestion and asked or suggested that Petrov position her virtual book accordingly are among the most damaging categories of evidence in this investigation. If such communications exist in the produced documents, Staff will present them during the testimony. Petrov must be prepared to address these communications honestly and directly, while providing context that mitigates their significance to the extent possible. During the preparation sessions, every such communication identified in the document review should be discussed in detail, and Petrov should develop a clear, consistent, and credible explanation for each.

Documents reflecting FTR-related intent. Any documents showing that Petrov acknowledged or understood that her virtual positions were designed to "support," "enhance," or "increase" the value of DPT's FTR positions are highly significant. Such documents would directly support Staff's theory that the virtual positions had a manipulative purpose beyond legitimate arbitrage. Petrov should be prepared to explain any such documents and, where possible, to contextualize them within the broader portfolio optimization framework.

Awareness of below-cost Day-Ahead offers. Documents or testimony reflecting that Petrov was aware that Renfro's Day-Ahead offers were below the marginal cost of generation, and that this pricing was intentional, would support Staff's characterization of the Day-Ahead offers as uneconomic and manipulative. Petrov should be careful in describing her understanding of Renfro's bidding practices and should avoid making statements that could be interpreted as acknowledging that the below-cost pricing was designed to create congestion rather than to respond to legitimate commercial considerations.

Communications with Sung reflecting coordinated strategy. Any communications with Sung that reflect a coordinated cross-desk trading strategy — particularly one that links Day-Ahead physical offers, Real-Time virtual positions, and FTR holdings into an explicit strategy — could be characterized as evidence of a management-directed manipulative scheme. This would have implications not only for Petrov and the individual traders, but for DPT as an entity and for Sung personally.

Compensation structure and motive. Petrov's compensation structure, and particularly whether her bonuses were tied to the combined P&L of the MISO trading desk (including gains from FTR positions), may be used by Staff to establish financial motive for participating in the alleged scheme. If Petrov's compensation was directly linked to the profitability of the integrated portfolio — including FTR gains that benefited from the congestion differentials at issue — Staff will argue that she had a personal financial incentive to coordinate her virtual positions with Renfro's Day-Ahead offers. It should be noted that FERC Staff's second data request, served August 7, 2023, contained eighteen supplemental interrogatories that specifically focused on trader compensation structures. Staff will likely already have detailed information about Petrov's compensation when they examine her, and Petrov should assume that Staff's questions in this area are based on specific documentary evidence.

D. Coordination with Other Witness Testimonies

The coordination of testimony across the three key witnesses — Renfro, Petrov, and Sung — is one of the most important strategic considerations in this investigation.

Renfro testimony (September 5, 2023). Renfro's testimony occurred the day before this memorandum was prepared. The debrief from that session should inform Petrov's preparation in several critical respects. First, the areas that Staff explored with Renfro will indicate Staff's priorities and theory of the case, which will guide our identification of the highest-risk topic areas for Petrov. Second, the specific documents that Staff presented to Renfro will help us identify which documents Staff is likely to present to Petrov, either to obtain her independent characterization or to test whether her account is consistent with Renfro's. Third, any follow-up questions that Staff indicated it would ask other witnesses — or any topics where Renfro's answers were ambiguous, incomplete, or potentially inconsistent with the defense narrative — will require particular attention during Petrov's preparation.

Sung testimony (September 19, 2023). Sung's testimony follows Petrov's by one week. During her testimony, Petrov should be careful not to characterize Sung's directives, oversight, or strategic vision in ways that may be inconsistent with Sung's anticipated testimony. For example, if Petrov characterizes Sung as having directed a coordinated cross-desk strategy, and Sung subsequently denies having done so, the inconsistency would be damaging to both witnesses and to DPT's defense. Conversely, if Petrov denies receiving any direction from Sung, and Sung's testimony or documents reflect that he did provide such direction, the inconsistency would be equally harmful.

Consistency on the portfolio optimization rationale. All three witnesses must present a consistent account of DPT's portfolio management approach. The core message — that DPT managed an integrated portfolio of generation, virtual, and FTR positions as a matter of standard industry practice, and that the interaction of these positions did not reflect a manipulative scheme — must be articulated consistently across all three testimonies. Any material inconsistency among the witnesses on this central theme would significantly undermine the defense.

VI. LOGISTICS

The logistical details for Petrov's testimony are as follows:

Testimony Date: September 12, 2023.

Testimony Location: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Enforcement, 888 First Street NE, Washington, D.C. 20426.

FERC Staff Conducting Examination: Thomas Adebayo, Lead Investigator, Division of Investigations, Office of Enforcement; and Christine Pham, Senior Attorney, Division of Investigations, Office of Enforcement.

C&H Counsel Attending: Catherine Bloom, Responsible Partner; and Hannah Brinkley, Lead Associate.

Preparation Sessions: We recommend scheduling preparation sessions with Petrov on the weekend of September 9–10, 2023, which is the weekend immediately preceding the testimony date. These sessions should be held at the Calderwood & Harkness Houston office, located at 1001 Fannin Street, Suite 4200, Houston, Texas 77002, unless Washington, D.C. is logistically preferable given travel arrangements. The preparation sessions should include a comprehensive review of the anticipated topic areas outlined in Section III of this memorandum, a detailed review of the key documents identified in Section IV, and one or more mock examination exercises in which Petrov is subjected to questioning that simulates the tone, substance, and style of FERC Staff's anticipated examination. The mock examination should focus particularly on the areas of concern identified in Section V.C.

Personal Notes and Materials: Petrov should be instructed to bring no personal notes, outlines, or documents to the testimony. All documents presented during the testimony will be presented by FERC Staff. Any notes brought by Petrov could be subject to Staff's inspection and could potentially be treated as material relevant to the investigation.

Confidentiality. The testimony is non-public under 18 C.F.R. Part 1b. Petrov should be reminded of her confidentiality obligations with respect to the investigation, the testimony, and any information learned during the investigation. She should not discuss the substance of her testimony, the questions asked, or the documents presented with any person other than counsel.

Transcript. A court reporter will be present at the testimony, and a transcript of the examination will be produced. We should request a copy of the transcript for C&H's files. Under 18 C.F.R. § 1b.12, the witness is entitled to review the transcript and make corrections. We should avail ourselves of this right and should review the transcript promptly upon receipt to identify any errors or areas of concern.

VII. NEXT STEPS

The following action items should be completed in advance of Petrov's testimony on September 12, 2023:

1. Finalize key document list. Following receipt and review of the debrief memorandum from Renfro's testimony on September 5, 2023, finalize the list of key documents for Petrov's review. This list should include all documents that Staff presented to Renfro during his testimony, all documents that may be presented to Petrov for corroboration or comparison, and any additional documents identified through the ongoing document review as presenting particular risks or opportunities. Patrick Gallagher will assist with document review and identification of key exhibits for the Petrov preparation sessions.

2. Schedule preparation sessions. Confirm the preparation sessions with Petrov for September 9–10, 2023. Determine the preferred location (Houston or Washington, D.C.) and arrange appropriate conference room space, technology, and support. The sessions should be blocked for full days on both September 9 and September 10 to allow adequate time for document review, substantive discussion, and mock examination.

3. Coordinate travel logistics. Arrange travel logistics for Petrov, Bloom, and Brinkley to Washington, D.C. for the September 12 testimony. Hotel accommodations should be arranged for the evening of September 11 at a minimum, with an additional night on September 12 in case the testimony extends to a second day or Staff requests a continuation.

4. Prepare Sung testimony outline. Following Petrov's testimony on September 12, prepare a debrief memorandum documenting Staff's areas of focus, the documents presented, and the key takeaways from the session. Use the debrief to inform the preparation of Derek Sung's testimony outline and preparation materials. Sung's testimony is currently scheduled for September 19, 2023, and a separate preparation outline will follow.

5. Renfro debrief integration. Ensure that all observations from the Renfro testimony debrief are fully integrated into the Petrov preparation materials before the September 9 preparation session. Any areas where Renfro's testimony was inconsistent with the defense narrative, or where Staff's questioning revealed unexpected areas of focus, should be flagged for priority attention during Petrov's preparation.

This memorandum is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine. It was prepared in anticipation of litigation and reflects the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, and legal theories of counsel. This memorandum is not to be disclosed to any person outside of Calderwood & Harkness LLP and authorized representatives of Dunmore Power Trading LLC without the express written consent of counsel.

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP

Prepared by: ________ Hannah Brinkley Lead Associate C&H Matter No. 1016-00004

Date: September 6, 2023

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PREPARED IN ANTICIPATION OF LITIGATION
MEMORANDUM
September 6, 2023
FROM: Hannah Brinkley, Lead Associate, Calderwood & Harkness LLP
TO: Catherine Bloom, Responsible Partner, Calderwood & Harkness LLP
RE: Testimony Preparation Outline — Anastasia Petrov, Trader, MISO Real-Time Desk, Dunmore Power Trading LLC; FERC Docket No. IN23-7-000
C&H Matter Number: 1016-00004
C&H Billing Code: 71420.00001
Testimony Date: September 12, 2023
Testimony Location: FERC Office of Enforcement, 888 First Street NE, Washington, D.C. 20426
Examining Staff: Thomas Adebayo (Lead Investigator) and Christine Pham (Senior Attorney), Division of Investigations, Office of Enforcement
Testimony Authority: 18 C.F.R. § 1b.12
I. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF MEMORANDUM
This memorandum sets forth the preparation outline for the non-public investigative testimony of Anastasia Petrov, scheduled for September 12, 2023, before staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Office of Enforcement, Division of Investigations. The testimony will be conducted pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 1b.12, which authorizes Commission staff to compel testimony in furtherance of non-public investigations. Petrov has been identified by FERC Staff as a central witness in Docket No. IN23-7-000, an investigation into alleged manipulative trading by Dunmore Power Trading LLC ("DPT") in the Midcontinent Independent System Operator ("MISO") energy markets.
Anastasia Petrov is thirty-one years old and currently serves as a Trader on the MISO Real-Time Desk at DPT. FERC Staff has identified Petrov as the trader responsible for executing complementary Real-Time virtual positions that were allegedly designed to amplify congestion differentials created by uneconomic Day-Ahead bids placed by her colleague, Kyle Renfro, at the Indiana Hub pricing node. The investigation centers on the allegation that these coordinated positions constituted a manipulative scheme in violation of Section 222 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. § 824v, and 18 C.F.R. § 1c.2.
The timing of Petrov's testimony is significant. Kyle Renfro's investigative testimony was conducted on September 5, 2023, the day before this memorandum was prepared. Observations and takeaways from Renfro's session — including the key areas of Staff questioning, the overall tone and approach of the examining investigators, and the specific documents that Staff referenced and presented to Renfro — should be fully integrated into Petrov's preparation. A separate debrief memorandum from the Renfro session is being prepared and will be incorporated into the Petrov preparation materials as soon as it is finalized.
Additionally, Derek Sung's testimony is currently scheduled for September 19, 2023. Sung is Petrov's direct supervisor and the Senior Vice President of Power Marketing & Trading at DPT. Because Sung's testimony follows Petrov's, careful attention must be paid during Petrov's preparation to ensure that her characterizations of Sung's role, directives, and oversight are not inconsistent with the account that Sung is expected to provide. The consistency of testimony across all three witnesses — Renfro, Petrov, and Sung — will be a critical element of DPT's defense posture in this investigation.
This memorandum is organized as follows: Section II provides background on the witness, including her professional role, the relevant trading activity at issue, and the document productions that have been made in this matter. Section III identifies and analyzes the anticipated areas of FERC Staff questioning. Section IV catalogs the key documents that Petrov should review in advance of her testimony. Section V sets forth the recommended approach and key guidance for the testimony, including general testimony guidelines, substantive themes to reinforce, areas of concern, and coordination issues with other witness testimonies. Section VI addresses logistical matters. Section VII identifies next steps.
II. BACKGROUND ON THE WITNESS
A. Professional Role and Reporting Structure
Anastasia Petrov, age thirty-one, holds the title of Trader on the MISO Real-Time Desk at Dunmore Power Trading LLC. DPT is a Delaware limited liability company and a wholly owned subsidiary of Dunmore Energy Holdings Ltd. DPT's principal office is located at 2200 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 3100, Houston, Texas 77056. DPT's Employer Identification Number is 82-4519763.
DPT holds market-based rate authority from the Commission, granted under FERC Docket No. ER05-1128-000, which authorizes the company to engage in wholesale power sales at market-based rates in organized wholesale electricity markets, including the MISO markets that are the subject of this investigation.
Petrov reports directly to Derek Sung, Senior Vice President, Power Marketing & Trading. Sung is responsible for overall supervision of DPT's MISO trading operations and has direct oversight authority over both the Day-Ahead and Real-Time trading desks. During the Relevant Period — defined by FERC Staff as January 3, 2022, through March 17, 2023 — the MISO trading desk at DPT employed fourteen traders, including Petrov and Renfro. The organizational structure of the desk placed Day-Ahead physical generation scheduling and Real-Time virtual trading under the same supervisory umbrella, with Sung serving as the common point of authority for both functions.
Petrov's primary responsibilities during the Relevant Period included the execution of virtual transactions in the MISO markets — specifically, Increment Offers ("INCs") and Decrement Bids ("DECs") — as well as aspects of Real-Time physical dispatch management. INCs represent offers to sell energy in the Day-Ahead market at a specified price and node, with the expectation that the Real-Time price will be lower, resulting in a profit on the virtual sale. DECs represent bids to purchase energy in the Day-Ahead market, with the expectation that the Real-Time price will be higher. Virtual transactions do not involve the actual physical delivery or receipt of energy; rather, they are financial positions that settle on the difference between Day-Ahead and Real-Time prices at a given node. Virtual trading is a recognized and common practice in organized wholesale electricity markets and serves important price convergence and market efficiency functions.
B. Relevant Trading Activity
FERC Staff's investigation in Docket No. IN23-7-000 focuses on DPT's trading activity at the Indiana Hub and Minnesota Hub pricing nodes in the MISO Day-Ahead and Real-Time energy markets during the Relevant Period. The investigation was initiated following a referral from MISO's Independent Market Monitor ("IMM"), Velthorn Market Analytics, Inc., and centers on the allegation that DPT engaged in a cross-product manipulative trading scheme involving the coordination of uneconomic Day-Ahead physical generation offers, complementary Real-Time virtual positions, and Financial Transmission Rights ("FTRs").
Petrov's activities that are at issue in this investigation relate specifically to her virtual trading at the Minnesota Hub. During the Relevant Period, Petrov is alleged to have placed Increment Offers and Decrement Bids at the Minnesota Hub totaling approximately 1,620 gigawatt-hours ("GWh") of virtual volume. FERC Staff's theory of the case is that these virtual positions were not entered for the independent purpose of capturing Day-Ahead to Real-Time price convergence, but were instead designed to amplify the congestion differential created by Kyle Renfro's allegedly uneconomic Day-Ahead generation offers at the Indiana Hub.
The alleged scheme, as described in Staff's communications and data requests to date, involved the following mechanics: Renfro would submit Day-Ahead generation offers at Indiana Hub at prices alleged to be below the marginal cost of production — in some instances, offers as low as negative fifteen dollars per megawatt-hour ($-15/MWh) to negative forty dollars per megawatt-hour ($-40/MWh) — which, when accepted by the Day-Ahead market clearing process, would increase congestion on certain MISO transmission paths. Petrov would then place virtual positions at Minnesota Hub that would benefit from, or further amplify, the resulting congestion differentials between Indiana Hub and Minnesota Hub. These congestion differentials would, in turn, increase the settlement value of DPT's portfolio of Financial Transmission Rights, which had a notional value of approximately $47.3 million during the Relevant Period.
Staff's theory thus characterizes Petrov's virtual trading as part of a broader, coordinated scheme involving cross-product manipulation and physical-financial coordination — specifically, the use of uneconomic physical generation offers to create congestion that benefits both virtual positions and FTR holdings.
C. Prior Document Production Relevant to Petrov
In response to FERC Staff's data requests and subpoenas in this investigation, DPT has made two substantial document productions to date.
The first document production was completed on July 24, 2023, and consisted of 48,200 documents, bearing Bates stamp numbers DUNMORE-000001 through DUNMORE-048200. This production included trading records, position blotters, internal communications, compliance materials, and corporate organizational documents responsive to Staff's initial data request.
The second document production was completed on August 21, 2023, and consisted of 63,400 documents, bearing Bates stamp numbers DUNMORE-048201 through DUNMORE-111600. This supplemental production was made in response to FERC Staff's second data request, served August 7, 2023, which contained eighteen supplemental interrogatories. This second production focused on additional trading records, trader compensation structures, internal audit documents, and further internal communications identified through expanded search terms and date ranges.
Across both productions, a combined total of 111,600 documents have been produced to FERC Staff. Petrov was one of eleven identified custodians whose files were collected and searched in connection with these productions. Her custodial documents include trading records and position blotters for her virtual transactions, internal email communications, instant messages exchanged on DPT's internal messaging platforms, and communications with Renfro, Sung, and other members of the MISO trading desk. The e-discovery vendor engaged for this matter is Crestline Document Solutions LLC, which has managed the collection, processing, review, and production of all documents in both production sets.
It should be noted that FERC Staff will have had access to all 111,600 produced documents in the weeks preceding Petrov's testimony. Staff's examination of Petrov will likely include the presentation of specific documents from the production — particularly internal communications between Petrov and Renfro, and between Petrov and Sung — for which Petrov will be asked to provide context, explanation, and characterization. The identification of the most significant documents from the production that Staff is likely to present to Petrov is an ongoing workstream that will be finalized following the debrief of Renfro's testimony.
III. ANTICIPATED AREAS OF FERC STAFF QUESTIONING
Based on our review of the investigation record to date, FERC Staff's data requests and subpoenas, the document productions, the theory of the case as articulated in Staff's communications, and preliminary observations from the Renfro testimony session on September 5, 2023, we anticipate that Staff will explore the following topic areas during Petrov's testimony. Each topic area is discussed below, along with analytical commentary regarding the significance of the anticipated questions and the risks they present.
A. Role and Responsibilities on the MISO Real-Time Desk
FERC Staff will almost certainly begin the examination with foundational questions designed to establish Petrov's role, responsibilities, and authority on the MISO Real-Time Desk. This is standard practice in FERC investigative testimony sessions and serves both to create a record regarding the witness's background and to lay the groundwork for more targeted substantive questioning later in the session.
Staff will likely ask Petrov to describe her daily duties and workflow on the Real-Time desk, including the hours she worked, the markets she monitored, the tools and platforms she used, and the sequence of events that constituted a typical trading day. They will inquire about how virtual trading positions — specifically INCs and DECs — are originated, sized, and placed in the MISO market. This line of questioning will seek to establish whether Petrov exercised independent judgment in selecting positions or whether she operated under more specific direction from supervisors or colleagues.
Staff will also ask about the risk limits and position limits applicable to Petrov's trading book. DPT's internal risk management framework imposed certain position size limits, value-at-risk thresholds, and loss limits on individual traders. Petrov should be prepared to describe these limits accurately and to explain whether her trading during the Relevant Period operated within them. Any instances in which limits were exceeded or exceptions were granted will be of particular interest to Staff.
Approval and oversight processes will also be explored. Staff will want to understand what level of supervisory sign-off from Sung was required before Petrov could enter virtual positions — whether Sung's approval was required for each individual position, for positions above a certain threshold, for new strategies or node selections, or not at all. This line of questioning goes directly to the issue of whether a coordinated strategy existed and, if so, who directed it.
Relatedly, Staff will probe the distinction between positions that Petrov entered on her own independent initiative and positions that were directed, suggested, or influenced by others — including Renfro and Sung. This is a critical area because the manipulation theory depends in part on establishing coordination among the traders, as opposed to independent and coincidental trading.
Finally, Staff will ask Petrov to describe her understanding of how her Real-Time positions related to DPT's broader portfolio, including the company's generation assets. DPT's U.S. generation portfolio during the Relevant Period consisted of approximately 4,280 megawatts of total capacity, comprising approximately 2,650 megawatts of gas-fired generation, 1,130 megawatts of wind generation, and 500 megawatts of solar generation. Staff will want to understand whether Petrov viewed her virtual trading as connected to the management or optimization of these physical generation assets, or as a standalone profit center.
B. Virtual Trading at Minnesota Hub — Specific Transactions
This will likely be the most transaction-specific and granular portion of the examination. Staff will focus closely on Petrov's virtual trading activity at the Minnesota Hub during the Relevant Period and will seek to understand both the mechanics of her trading and the rationale behind it.
Staff will ask Petrov to explain her rationale for placing Increment Offers and Decrement Bids at the Minnesota Hub specifically. Why the Minnesota Hub, as opposed to other available MISO pricing nodes? What fundamental analysis, market observation, or other basis led her to select that node? This question is significant because Staff's manipulation theory depends on the premise that the Minnesota Hub was selected not for independent fundamental reasons, but because positions at that node would amplify the congestion differential created by Renfro's Day-Ahead offers at Indiana Hub.
Staff will probe the volume and frequency of Petrov's virtual trading at Minnesota Hub during the Relevant Period. The approximately 1,620 GWh in total alleged virtual volume represents a substantial level of activity, and Staff will likely break this down by time period, direction (INCs versus DECs), and size to identify patterns that correlate with Renfro's Day-Ahead bidding activity at Indiana Hub.
Petrov's pricing methodology will also be examined in detail. Staff will ask how she determined the price levels at which she placed her virtual bids and offers — whether she used quantitative models, historical price analysis, fundamental forecasts, or other methods. Staff will also ask about volume sizing — how she determined how many megawatt-hours to bid or offer at a given node on a given day.
The directionality of Petrov's positions will be scrutinized. Staff will want to know whether her virtual positions at Minnesota Hub were consistently directional (i.e., predominantly INCs or predominantly DECs) or whether they varied based on market conditions. A consistently directional pattern that correlates with Renfro's Day-Ahead activity at Indiana Hub would support Staff's coordination theory. Variation based on independent fundamental analysis would support the defense narrative.
Profitability will be another important area. Staff will ask about the profitability of Petrov's Minnesota Hub virtual positions, both on a standalone basis and in the context of DPT's broader portfolio. How was P&L tracked — by individual trader, by desk, by node, or by strategy? This line of questioning may reveal whether certain positions that were unprofitable on a standalone basis were nonetheless entered because they enhanced the profitability of other DPT positions, such as FTRs.
Finally, Staff will test Petrov's understanding of congestion dynamics between Minnesota Hub and Indiana Hub. This is a foundational question that goes to whether Petrov understood the market mechanics through which her virtual positions could, in combination with Renfro's Day-Ahead offers, create or amplify congestion differentials. If Petrov demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of these dynamics, Staff may use that understanding to support an inference of intentional coordination.
C. Relationship Between Day-Ahead and Real-Time Positions
This area of questioning will be the crux of Staff's examination and will directly address the coordination allegation at the heart of the investigation. Staff will seek to establish a nexus between Petrov's Real-Time virtual positions at Minnesota Hub and Renfro's Day-Ahead physical generation offers at Indiana Hub.
Staff will ask Petrov about her knowledge of Renfro's Day-Ahead bidding strategies at Indiana Hub. Specifically, Staff will want to know whether Petrov was aware that Renfro submitted negative Day-Ahead generation offers — at prices as low as negative fifteen dollars per megawatt-hour to negative forty dollars per megawatt-hour — and whether she understood that such offers were below the marginal cost of production for the relevant generating units.
Staff will then ask directly whether Petrov's virtual positions at Minnesota Hub were designed to complement, offset, or amplify Renfro's Day-Ahead positions at Indiana Hub. This is the central question of the examination, and Petrov's response will be among the most significant pieces of testimony in the entire investigation. Her answer must be carefully prepared.
Staff will probe whether there was a coordinated strategy between the Day-Ahead and Real-Time desks to create or exploit congestion differentials between Indiana Hub and Minnesota Hub. The structural fact that both desks reported to the same supervisor — Derek Sung — will be used by Staff to suggest that coordination was not only possible but likely.
Petrov's awareness of DPT's Financial Transmission Rights portfolio will be examined closely. The FTR portfolio had a notional value of approximately $47.3 million during the Relevant Period, and FTR values are directly affected by congestion patterns on the MISO transmission system. Staff's theory posits that one of the primary motivations for the alleged scheme was to increase the settlement value of DPT's FTR holdings. Staff will ask whether Petrov was aware of the FTR portfolio, whether she understood how congestion dynamics affected FTR values, and whether her virtual trading was intended to influence those values.
Staff will ask whether Petrov was ever informed — by Renfro, Sung, or anyone else — that certain virtual positions could increase the value of DPT's FTR positions. Any affirmative answer, or any document reflecting such a communication, would be highly damaging.
Staff will also explore how the Day-Ahead and Real-Time desks communicated during trading hours. Were there shared screens, open communication lines, joint morning meetings, or real-time position sharing between the desks? The physical layout of the trading floor, the communication channels used, and the information flow between the desks will all be relevant to establishing whether coordination occurred.
D. Communications with Kyle Renfro
Staff will devote significant examination time to Petrov's communications with Renfro. This topic area is distinct from the broader coordination questions discussed above because it focuses specifically on direct, bilateral communications between the two traders.
Staff will ask about the nature, frequency, and channels of communication between Petrov and Renfro. Did they communicate primarily by email, instant message, telephone, in-person conversation, or through their proximity on the trading floor? How often did they communicate about trading matters? Were their communications formal (e.g., structured position reports) or informal (e.g., casual conversations about market views)?
Staff will ask whether Renfro directed, suggested, or influenced specific virtual positions that Petrov placed at Minnesota Hub. This question addresses the critical issue of agency — whether Petrov was acting on Renfro's instructions, collaborating with him, or trading independently.
Staff will inquire whether Renfro shared his Day-Ahead bidding plans with Petrov in advance of the MISO Day-Ahead market close. If Renfro communicated his intended Day-Ahead offers to Petrov before those offers were submitted, that would support an inference that Petrov had the opportunity and information necessary to coordinate her virtual positions with Renfro's physical offers.
Staff will almost certainly present specific documents from the Bates-stamped productions — emails, instant messages, and potentially phone records — and ask Petrov to explain the content, context, and meaning of those communications. This is an area where the Renfro testimony debrief will be particularly valuable, as Staff may have presented the same or related documents to Renfro and obtained his characterization, which they will then seek to compare with Petrov's characterization.
Staff will ask whether Petrov and Renfro discussed congestion patterns, FTR positions, or the relationship between their respective trading books. Any such discussions would support the coordination theory. Staff will also ask about any communications regarding the profitability or market impact of their combined positions — that is, whether Petrov and Renfro ever discussed or analyzed how their respective positions interacted to produce gains for DPT's overall portfolio.
E. Communications with Derek Sung and Other Trading Personnel
Staff will also examine Petrov's communications with her supervisor, Derek Sung, and with other members of the MISO trading desk. The purpose of this line of questioning is to establish the degree of management involvement in and awareness of the alleged coordinated strategy.
Staff will ask whether Sung directed or approved the virtual trading strategy at Minnesota Hub. Did Sung instruct Petrov to trade at Minnesota Hub, or did she select that node independently? Did Sung set parameters for her virtual trading in terms of volume, direction, or pricing?
Staff will inquire about the frequency and nature of team meetings, morning calls, strategy sessions, or other forums in which Day-Ahead and Real-Time positions were discussed together. If DPT held regular meetings at which both desks' positions were reviewed and a combined portfolio strategy was articulated, that would support Staff's theory of a coordinated scheme directed by management.
Staff will ask whether portfolio-level trading strategies were ever presented by Sung or others that combined physical generation offers, virtual transactions, and FTR positions into a unified strategy. Any presentation, memorandum, or discussion reflecting such an integrated approach would be of high significance to Staff.
Finally, Staff may ask about communications with any of the other fourteen traders on the MISO trading desk regarding coordinated or complementary strategies. While Petrov and Renfro are the primary focus, Staff may seek to establish that the alleged coordination extended more broadly across the desk.
F. Gas Nominations and Physical-Financial Coordination
Staff may explore the relationship between DPT's gas-fired generation operations and Petrov's virtual trading, particularly as it relates to the physical-financial coordination element of the alleged scheme.
Petrov should be prepared for questions regarding her knowledge of Dunmore Midstream Partners LP ("DMP"), a separate entity with EIN 47-8831205. DMP is involved in gas scheduling and pipeline operations, and Staff may be investigating whether information from DMP regarding gas nomination timing or volumes was shared with DPT traders and used to inform trading decisions.
Staff will ask whether Petrov had any interaction with DMP personnel regarding gas nomination timing, volumes, or pricing. Staff will also ask whether gas scheduling information — including information about whether DPT's gas-fired units would actually be dispatched or available — influenced Petrov's Real-Time virtual trading decisions.
Staff may also probe Petrov's awareness of the physical gas supply arrangements supporting DPT's gas-fired generation units, including the identity of gas suppliers, the terms of gas purchase contracts, and the relationship between gas costs and the marginal cost of electricity generation at DPT's facilities. This line of questioning may be relevant to establishing whether the Day-Ahead generation offers at Indiana Hub were, in fact, below marginal cost.
G. Compliance Awareness and Training
Staff will examine Petrov's familiarity with DPT's compliance framework and her understanding of market manipulation prohibitions. This area of questioning serves to establish Petrov's state of mind and awareness of the legal boundaries applicable to her trading activity.
Staff will ask about Petrov's awareness of DPT's compliance policies during the Relevant Period, including any written compliance manuals, codes of conduct, or trading policies that governed her activity. Staff will inquire whether Petrov received any training on market manipulation prohibitions under Section 222 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. § 824v) or the Commission's anti-manipulation rule (18 C.F.R. § 1c.2). The nature, timing, and content of any such training will be explored.
Staff will ask whether Petrov was aware of Rhonda Vasquez's role as Vice President of Regulatory Affairs at DPT, and whether Vasquez served any compliance oversight or reporting function with respect to the trading desk. Staff will also ask whether Jennifer Caulfield's appointment as Chief Compliance Officer on February 6, 2023, resulted in any changes to compliance training, oversight, or reporting that Petrov experienced before the end of the Relevant Period on March 17, 2023. The timing of Caulfield's appointment — only approximately five weeks before the end of the Relevant Period — is notable and may suggest that DPT was responding to emerging compliance concerns.
Finally, and critically, Staff will ask whether Petrov ever had concerns about the legality or propriety of any trading strategy employed at DPT, and if so, whether she raised those concerns with a supervisor, compliance officer, or any other person. This question is designed to test whether Petrov had any contemporaneous awareness that the trading activity at issue was potentially improper. An affirmative answer could be highly damaging, but a denial, if contradicted by documents reflecting such concerns, could undermine Petrov's credibility.
H. Knowledge of MISO Independent Market Monitor Activity
Staff may ask Petrov about her awareness of the monitoring activities of the MISO Independent Market Monitor, Velthorn Market Analytics, Inc. Dr. Patricia Engel serves as President of Velthorn, and the organization is responsible for monitoring trading activity in the MISO markets for potential market manipulation, market power abuse, and other concerns.
Staff will ask whether Petrov was aware that Velthorn monitored MISO trading patterns, and whether she was aware of any contact from Velthorn or the IMM regarding DPT's trading during the Relevant Period. If Velthorn contacted DPT with inquiries about trading patterns before making its referral to FERC, Petrov's awareness of such contacts could be relevant to establishing that DPT was on notice that its trading was attracting scrutiny.
Staff will also ask whether Petrov was aware of the IMM referral letter dated April 3, 2023, in which Velthorn referred DPT's trading activity to FERC's Office of Enforcement. While this referral post-dates the Relevant Period, Petrov's knowledge of it may be relevant to Staff's assessment of the flow of information within DPT and the company's response to the investigation.
IV. KEY DOCUMENTS FOR WITNESS REVIEW
In advance of her testimony on September 12, 2023, Petrov should be instructed to review the following categories of documents. A comprehensive review of these materials will enable Petrov to testify accurately and with appropriate specificity regarding her trading activity, communications, and awareness of relevant events during the Relevant Period.
1.  Trading Records and Position Blotters. Petrov should review her own trading records and position blotters for all virtual transactions — both Increment Offers and Decrement Bids — at the Minnesota Hub during the Relevant Period (January 3, 2022, through March 17, 2023). She should be familiar with the volume, pricing, direction, and timing of her positions, as well as the profitability of those positions on a day-by-day and aggregate basis.
2.  Internal Communications with Kyle Renfro. Petrov should review all internal emails and instant messages between herself and Renfro that were identified from the custodial productions. She should be prepared to explain the content and context of each communication and should be alert to any language that could be interpreted as reflecting coordination, direction, or shared strategy between the Day-Ahead and Real-Time desks.
3.  Internal Communications with Derek Sung. Petrov should review all internal emails and instant messages between herself and Sung, including any communications reflecting directives, approvals, strategy discussions, or performance reviews related to her virtual trading activity.
4.  Trading Desk Policies and Procedures. Petrov should review DPT's trading desk policies and procedures that were in effect during the Relevant Period, including risk limits, position limits, escalation procedures, and any policies governing the relationship between Day-Ahead and Real-Time trading.
5.  Morning Meeting Notes and Strategy Documents. Petrov should review any morning meeting notes, strategy memoranda, portfolio review documents, or similar materials that she authored, received, or participated in during the Relevant Period. These documents may reflect the articulation of trading strategies that Staff will characterize as evidence of coordination.
6.  Compliance Manual and Training Materials. Petrov should review DPT's compliance manual as it existed during the Relevant Period, as well as any market manipulation training materials, compliance certifications, or related documents that she received or signed.
7.  Key Bates-Stamped Documents. Petrov should review specific key documents identified from the Bates-stamped productions (DUNMORE-000001 through DUNMORE-111600) that FERC Staff is likely to present during her testimony. The list of these specific documents is to be finalized following review of the Renfro testimony debrief and should be the subject of detailed discussion during the preparation sessions. Patrick Gallagher will assist with the document review and identification of key exhibits for the Petrov preparation sessions.
V. RECOMMENDED APPROACH AND KEY GUIDANCE
A. General Testimony Guidelines
The following general guidelines should be communicated to Petrov during the preparation sessions and reinforced through mock examination exercises:
Answer only the question asked. Petrov should listen carefully to each question, answer it directly and concisely, and then stop. She should not volunteer information beyond the scope of the question, elaborate unnecessarily, or attempt to provide helpful context that Staff has not requested. Volunteered information creates additional avenues for follow-up questioning and may inadvertently introduce topics that Staff had not intended to explore.
Distinguish between personal knowledge, information received from others, and speculation. Petrov should clearly delineate what she knows from her own direct experience and observation, what she learned from others (and, if so, from whom), and what she is speculating or inferring. FERC Staff will seek to lock Petrov into statements of personal knowledge where possible, and it is important that she not overstate the basis for her testimony.
"I don't recall" is an appropriate answer when genuine. If Petrov genuinely does not recall a fact, event, or communication, she should say so. She should not guess, approximate, or speculate in order to provide an answer. At the same time, she should be aware that excessive or implausible invocations of failed recollection will undermine her credibility and may be perceived by Staff as evasive.
Do not characterize the intent or purpose of others' trading activity. Petrov should speak only to her own understanding, analysis, and actions. She should avoid offering opinions or characterizations regarding Renfro's intent in placing Day-Ahead offers, Sung's strategic objectives, or the purpose of DPT's broader portfolio management. Staff will seek to elicit such characterizations, and Petrov should resist providing them.
Assert privilege where appropriate. If a question touches on communications with outside counsel — whether with Calderwood & Harkness LLP or with Martin Llewellyn — Petrov should assert the attorney-client privilege and decline to answer without counsel's direction. Catherine Bloom will be present as counsel at the testimony and will instruct Petrov not to answer questions that implicate privilege. Petrov should defer to Bloom's instructions in all such instances and should not attempt to independently determine the scope of the privilege.
Take time before answering. Petrov should not rush to answer questions. She should pause, consider each question carefully, and formulate a complete and accurate response before speaking. This practice also gives counsel an opportunity to interpose objections or instructions before Petrov begins her answer.
B. Substantive Themes to Reinforce
Throughout her testimony, Petrov should consistently reinforce the following substantive themes, which form the core of DPT's defensive narrative in this investigation:
Legitimate arbitrage. Petrov's virtual trading at Minnesota Hub was conducted as a legitimate arbitrage strategy designed to capture the differential between Day-Ahead and Real-Time prices at that node. Virtual trading — including both INCs and DECs — is a recognized and essential function of organized wholesale electricity markets. MISO itself has stated that virtual trading promotes price convergence and market efficiency. Petrov's virtual positions were consistent with the purpose and design of the virtual trading market.
Independent fundamental analysis. Petrov's virtual positions were based on her independent analysis of market fundamentals, including load forecasts, weather conditions, transmission outage schedules, generation availability, and other factors relevant to the expected relationship between Day-Ahead and Real-Time prices at the Minnesota Hub. Her positions were not based on coordination with Renfro's Day-Ahead positions at Indiana Hub. To the extent that her positions at Minnesota Hub correlated temporally with Renfro's positions at Indiana Hub, that correlation reflected common market fundamentals, not coordination.
Congestion driven by transmission events. The congestion differentials at issue during the Relevant Period were primarily driven by transmission outage events, system conditions, and other factors external to DPT's trading activity. This theme is consistent with the economic analysis prepared by Dr. Leonard Whitfield, who has concluded that DPT's trading had a market impact of no more than $2.1 million — a figure that represents a small fraction of the total congestion observed during the Relevant Period and suggests that market fundamentals, not DPT's trading, were the primary drivers of congestion patterns.
Portfolio optimization as standard industry practice. DPT managed its generation assets, virtual trading positions, and FTR holdings as an integrated portfolio. This approach — known as portfolio optimization — is standard industry practice among power trading companies with diversified asset portfolios. The fact that DPT's various positions may have interacted to produce gains across different products does not, standing alone, establish manipulative intent. Portfolio optimization is recognized by the Commission and by courts as a legitimate commercial activity, and the existence of an integrated portfolio is not per se evidence of manipulation.
Petrov should be prepared to articulate these themes naturally and credibly, grounding them in her own experience and understanding. The themes should emerge organically from her testimony in response to Staff's questions, rather than appearing rehearsed or scripted.
C. Areas of Concern / Sensitive Topics
The following topics present the greatest risk during Petrov's testimony. Each topic is discussed below, along with an assessment of the potential harm and recommended approach.
Communications reflecting coordination with Renfro. Any communications — whether email, instant message, or otherwise — in which Renfro explicitly discussed the intended impact of his Day-Ahead bidding on congestion and asked or suggested that Petrov position her virtual book accordingly are among the most damaging categories of evidence in this investigation. If such communications exist in the produced documents, Staff will present them during the testimony. Petrov must be prepared to address these communications honestly and directly, while providing context that mitigates their significance to the extent possible. During the preparation sessions, every such communication identified in the document review should be discussed in detail, and Petrov should develop a clear, consistent, and credible explanation for each.
Documents reflecting FTR-related intent. Any documents showing that Petrov acknowledged or understood that her virtual positions were designed to "support," "enhance," or "increase" the value of DPT's FTR positions are highly significant. Such documents would directly support Staff's theory that the virtual positions had a manipulative purpose beyond legitimate arbitrage. Petrov should be prepared to explain any such documents and, where possible, to contextualize them within the broader portfolio optimization framework.
Awareness of below-cost Day-Ahead offers. Documents or testimony reflecting that Petrov was aware that Renfro's Day-Ahead offers were below the marginal cost of generation, and that this pricing was intentional, would support Staff's characterization of the Day-Ahead offers as uneconomic and manipulative. Petrov should be careful in describing her understanding of Renfro's bidding practices and should avoid making statements that could be interpreted as acknowledging that the below-cost pricing was designed to create congestion rather than to respond to legitimate commercial considerations.
Communications with Sung reflecting coordinated strategy. Any communications with Sung that reflect a coordinated cross-desk trading strategy — particularly one that links Day-Ahead physical offers, Real-Time virtual positions, and FTR holdings into an explicit strategy — could be characterized as evidence of a management-directed manipulative scheme. This would have implications not only for Petrov and the individual traders, but for DPT as an entity and for Sung personally.
Compensation structure and motive. Petrov's compensation structure, and particularly whether her bonuses were tied to the combined P&L of the MISO trading desk (including gains from FTR positions), may be used by Staff to establish financial motive for participating in the alleged scheme. If Petrov's compensation was directly linked to the profitability of the integrated portfolio — including FTR gains that benefited from the congestion differentials at issue — Staff will argue that she had a personal financial incentive to coordinate her virtual positions with Renfro's Day-Ahead offers. It should be noted that FERC Staff's second data request, served August 7, 2023, contained eighteen supplemental interrogatories that specifically focused on trader compensation structures. Staff will likely already have detailed information about Petrov's compensation when they examine her, and Petrov should assume that Staff's questions in this area are based on specific documentary evidence.
D. Coordination with Other Witness Testimonies
The coordination of testimony across the three key witnesses — Renfro, Petrov, and Sung — is one of the most important strategic considerations in this investigation.
Renfro testimony (September 5, 2023). Renfro's testimony occurred the day before this memorandum was prepared. The debrief from that session should inform Petrov's preparation in several critical respects. First, the areas that Staff explored with Renfro will indicate Staff's priorities and theory of the case, which will guide our identification of the highest-risk topic areas for Petrov. Second, the specific documents that Staff presented to Renfro will help us identify which documents Staff is likely to present to Petrov, either to obtain her independent characterization or to test whether her account is consistent with Renfro's. Third, any follow-up questions that Staff indicated it would ask other witnesses — or any topics where Renfro's answers were ambiguous, incomplete, or potentially inconsistent with the defense narrative — will require particular attention during Petrov's preparation.
Sung testimony (September 19, 2023). Sung's testimony follows Petrov's by one week. During her testimony, Petrov should be careful not to characterize Sung's directives, oversight, or strategic vision in ways that may be inconsistent with Sung's anticipated testimony. For example, if Petrov characterizes Sung as having directed a coordinated cross-desk strategy, and Sung subsequently denies having done so, the inconsistency would be damaging to both witnesses and to DPT's defense. Conversely, if Petrov denies receiving any direction from Sung, and Sung's testimony or documents reflect that he did provide such direction, the inconsistency would be equally harmful.
Consistency on the portfolio optimization rationale. All three witnesses must present a consistent account of DPT's portfolio management approach. The core message — that DPT managed an integrated portfolio of generation, virtual, and FTR positions as a matter of standard industry practice, and that the interaction of these positions did not reflect a manipulative scheme — must be articulated consistently across all three testimonies. Any material inconsistency among the witnesses on this central theme would significantly undermine the defense.
VI. LOGISTICS
The logistical details for Petrov's testimony are as follows:
Testimony Date: September 12, 2023.
Testimony Location: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Enforcement, 888 First Street NE, Washington, D.C. 20426.
FERC Staff Conducting Examination: Thomas Adebayo, Lead Investigator, Division of Investigations, Office of Enforcement; and Christine Pham, Senior Attorney, Division of Investigations, Office of Enforcement.
C&H Counsel Attending: Catherine Bloom, Responsible Partner; and Hannah Brinkley, Lead Associate.
Preparation Sessions: We recommend scheduling preparation sessions with Petrov on the weekend of September 9–10, 2023, which is the weekend immediately preceding the testimony date. These sessions should be held at the Calderwood & Harkness Houston office, located at 1001 Fannin Street, Suite 4200, Houston, Texas 77002, unless Washington, D.C. is logistically preferable given travel arrangements. The preparation sessions should include a comprehensive review of the anticipated topic areas outlined in Section III of this memorandum, a detailed review of the key documents identified in Section IV, and one or more mock examination exercises in which Petrov is subjected to questioning that simulates the tone, substance, and style of FERC Staff's anticipated examination. The mock examination should focus particularly on the areas of concern identified in Section V.C.
Personal Notes and Materials: Petrov should be instructed to bring no personal notes, outlines, or documents to the testimony. All documents presented during the testimony will be presented by FERC Staff. Any notes brought by Petrov could be subject to Staff's inspection and could potentially be treated as material relevant to the investigation.
Confidentiality. The testimony is non-public under 18 C.F.R. Part 1b. Petrov should be reminded of her confidentiality obligations with respect to the investigation, the testimony, and any information learned during the investigation. She should not discuss the substance of her testimony, the questions asked, or the documents presented with any person other than counsel.
Transcript. A court reporter will be present at the testimony, and a transcript of the examination will be produced. We should request a copy of the transcript for C&H's files. Under 18 C.F.R. § 1b.12, the witness is entitled to review the transcript and make corrections. We should avail ourselves of this right and should review the transcript promptly upon receipt to identify any errors or areas of concern.
VII. NEXT STEPS
The following action items should be completed in advance of Petrov's testimony on September 12, 2023:
1.  Finalize key document list. Following receipt and review of the debrief memorandum from Renfro's testimony on September 5, 2023, finalize the list of key documents for Petrov's review. This list should include all documents that Staff presented to Renfro during his testimony, all documents that may be presented to Petrov for corroboration or comparison, and any additional documents identified through the ongoing document review as presenting particular risks or opportunities. Patrick Gallagher will assist with document review and identification of key exhibits for the Petrov preparation sessions.
2.  Schedule preparation sessions. Confirm the preparation sessions with Petrov for September 9–10, 2023. Determine the preferred location (Houston or Washington, D.C.) and arrange appropriate conference room space, technology, and support. The sessions should be blocked for full days on both September 9 and September 10 to allow adequate time for document review, substantive discussion, and mock examination.
3.  Coordinate travel logistics. Arrange travel logistics for Petrov, Bloom, and Brinkley to Washington, D.C. for the September 12 testimony. Hotel accommodations should be arranged for the evening of September 11 at a minimum, with an additional night on September 12 in case the testimony extends to a second day or Staff requests a continuation.
4.  Prepare Sung testimony outline. Following Petrov's testimony on September 12, prepare a debrief memorandum documenting Staff's areas of focus, the documents presented, and the key takeaways from the session. Use the debrief to inform the preparation of Derek Sung's testimony outline and preparation materials. Sung's testimony is currently scheduled for September 19, 2023, and a separate preparation outline will follow.
5.  Renfro debrief integration. Ensure that all observations from the Renfro testimony debrief are fully integrated into the Petrov preparation materials before the September 9 preparation session. Any areas where Renfro's testimony was inconsistent with the defense narrative, or where Staff's questioning revealed unexpected areas of focus, should be flagged for priority attention during Petrov's preparation.
This memorandum is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine. It was prepared in anticipation of litigation and reflects the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, and legal theories of counsel. This memorandum is not to be disclosed to any person outside of Calderwood & Harkness LLP and authorized representatives of Dunmore Power Trading LLC without the express written consent of counsel.
CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP
Prepared by: ________ Hannah Brinkley Lead Associate C&H Matter No. 1016-00004
Date: September 6, 2023