Mr. Erspamer, who is a partner in the San Francisco office, is Co-Chair of Morrison & Foerster’s Inter-Disciplinary Energy Group and engages in the litigation of complex civil actions in both state and federal courts. Mr. Erspamer has been lead trial counsel in many jury trials, bench trials, and arbitrations. His litigation experience includes the Superior Courts located throughout California, the United States District Courts, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Erspamer is admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court.

For over 25 years, Mr. Erspamer’s primary area of concentration has been energy litigation, with a broad mix of experience representing independent power producers, ESPs, and Western utilities. Mr. Erspamer has extensive experience in handling cases involving PURPA, the FPA, PUHCA, the California Public Utilities Code, and matters involving power and natural gas contracts, transmission, renewables (including wind, solar, biomass, cogeneration, and geothermal), deregulation, and the interface between energy and antitrust/unfair business practice law.

Mr. Erspamer appeared before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, California, in 2004 to argue issues relating to preemption, the filed rate doctrine and the collateral attack doctrine on behalf of defendants in thirteen cases in the consolidated California Attorney General v. TransCanada, et al. matter. He also argued the Port of Seattle appeal in 2006, which affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint on similar grounds. He also argued similar issues in the Grays Harbor v. Idacorp, Inc., et al. matter, which established the legitimacy of FERC’s market-based rates regime.

In addition to his trial work, Mr. Erspamer has provided strategic advice to a number of clients on energy issues, including electric industry restructuring. Mr. Erspamer also has been a frequent panelist on energy issues, most recently at seminars sponsored by the San Francisco Public Utility Commission in 2004, and he co-chaired Law Seminars International’s San Francisco energy conferences in 2005 and 2006. He has also spoken before the Association of Bay Area Governments and the Los Angeles Power Producers Association.

In January 2005, Mr. Erspamer became a member of the Board of Directors of the Contra Costa County Bar Association. He also serves as a member of the Board of Directors of Swords to Plowshares Veterans Rights Organization. Mr. Erspamer has been admitted to the American Arbitration Association’s Commercial Panel of Neutrals. Gordon Erspamer received his B.A. degree summa cum laude from Hamline University in 1975 and his J.D. magna cum laude from the University of Michigan in 1978. He was an Associate Editor of the Michigan Law Review from 1976-77 and a Note Editor from 1977-78, and a member of the Order of the Coif. He joined Morrison & Foerster in 1982 and became a partner in 1984.

Recognitions

• 2006-2008, Mr. Erspamer is listed in The Best Lawyers in America as a leader in the field of Energy law.
• 2005-2007, Chambers USA recommends Mr. Erspamer for Energy & Natural Resources.
• 2004-2008, San Francisco Magazine named Mr. Erspamer one of Northern California's “Super Lawyers” in Energy Law.
• 1992, Mr. Erspamer was named “Trial Lawyer of the Year” by the Trial Lawyers for Public Justice Foundation in Washington, D.C.
• 1990, Mr. Erspamer accepted the National Association of Radiation Survivors “Justice Award” for the firm’s pro bono efforts on behalf of the organization and veterans exposed to ionizing radiation during the atmospheric nuclear tests.
• 1987, Mr. Erspamer received the Vietnam Veterans of America “Dean K. Phillips Memorial Award for Advocacy” in recognition of the firm’s pro bono work on behalf of disabled veterans and, in particular, for Mr. Erspamer’s role supporting legislation providing for judicial review of VA decisions.

Recent Publications

• Gordon P. Erspamer, Filed Rate Doctrine Applies to Rates Filed with State Authorities, Topic: Industry Structure, at www.energypulse.net (4-3-06).
• Gordon P. Erspamer, Court of Appeals Holds That State Court Should Hear Claims Relating To Alleged Transfer of $4 Billion From PG&E Bankruptcy Estate to Parent Corporation, Topic: Industry Structure, at www.energypulse.net (1-25-06).
• Gordon P. Erspamer, D.C. Circuit Rejects FERC's Interpretation of Incremental Cost , at www.energypulse.net (1-24-06).
• Gordon P. Erspamer, When to FERC, When Not to FERC, California Energy Circuit, Volume 4 Issue 3, January 20, 2006, at 3.
• Gordon P. Erspamer, Court of Appeals Holds that SMUD Has No Contractual Right to Transmission Service, Topic: Industry Structure, at www.energypulse.net (12-2-05).
• Gordon P. Erspamer, D.C. Circuit to Rule on Settlement privilege, Topic: Industry Structure, at www.energypulse.net (9-12-05).
• Gordon P. Erspamer, DC Circuit Court of Appeals Holds District Court Has Initial Jurisdiction Over PURPA Dispute, Topic: Industry Structure, at www.energypulse.net (7-1-05).
• Gordon P. Erspamer, Ninth Circuit Declines Review of BPA Decision to Trigger Rate Adjustment Clause, Topic: Industry Structure, at www.energypulse.net (7-1-05).
• Gordon P. Erspamer, A Public Utility’s Obligation to Serve: Saber or Doubled-Edged Sword?, The Electricity Journal, December 2004, at 32.
• Gordon P. Erspamer, California Court of Appeal Upholds District’s Decision to Issue Permit for Construction of Power Plant in San Jose, Topic: Industry Structure, at www.energypulse.net (7-15-04).
• Gordon P. Erspamer, Ninth Circuit Finds Electricity Supplier Immune from Liability for Alleged Refusal to Wheel, Topic: Industry Structure, at www.energypulse.net (5-21-04).
• Gordon P. Erspamer, Total Recall: Will Competition Be Back?, Public Utilities Fortnightly, March 2004, at 23.
• Gordon P. Erspamer, Lessons To Be Learned From the California Energy Crisis: The Litigation Perspective – Part I, Topic: Special Issue – 2003 in Review, at www.energypulse.net (1-20-04).
• Gordon P. Erspamer, Lessons To Be Learned From the California Energy Crisis: The Litigation Perspective – Part II, Topic: Special Issue – 2003 in Review, at www.energypulse.net (1-21-04).
• Gordon P. Erspamer, Lessons To Be Learned From the California Energy Crisis: The Litigation Perspective – Part III, Topic: Special Issue – 2003 in Review, at www.energypulse.net (1-22-04).
• Gordon P. Erspamer, U.S. Supreme Court Broadly Interprets Filed Rate Doctrine: Entergy Louisiana, Inc. v. Louisiana Public Serv. Comm’n, Topic: Industry Structure, at www.energypulse.net (10-20-03).
• Gordon P. Erspamer, Ninth Circuit Issues Latest Decision In Series of Cases Strengthening FERC’s Authority Under Federal Power Act. Skokomish Indian Tribe v. United States (9th Cir. 2003), Topic: Industry Structure, at www.energypulse.net (10-2-03).

Representative Energy Cases

• Public Utility District No. 1 of Grays Harbor County, Washington v. Idacorp, Inc., et al. (USDC-Western District of Washington at Tacoma Civil Action No. C02-5572RJB). Currently represent clients in unjust enrichment, rescission or reformation action filed by Grays Harbor PUD seeking retroactive price modifications to power contracts. Our client Idacorp’s motion to dismiss was granted in district court and Grays Harbor appealed. In what has become one of the leading cases on market-based rates in the Ninth Circuit, the Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal, finding that Grays Harbor’s complaint was preempted under the Federal Power Act’s grant of exclusive jurisdiction over wholesale power rates to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and was also barred by the filed-rate doctrine. The Case is reported at 379 F.3d 641, 647 (9th Cir., 2004). The sufficiency of Grays Harbor’s amended complaint is currently before the District Court. Client reference: James R. Thompson, Esq., Idaho Power Company, Boise, ID (208) 388-2481.
• California Attorney General v. Various Electricity Generators (USDC-Northern District of California, Case Nos. CV-02-3036, CV-02-3040, CV-02-3041, and CV-02-3042). Currently represent Idacorp Energy, L.P., Puget Sound Energy, Tucson Electric Power Company, and TransAlta Energy Marketing, Inc. in separate unfair competition actions filed by the California State Attorney General in San Francisco County Superior Court which have been removed to federal court by successful petition of defendants. The State claimed that rates for wholesale electricity charged by the generators are unjust and unreasonable and that the generators failed properly to file their rates with the FERC. We successfully moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, a determination which was recently affirmed by the Ninth Circuit.
• Wholesale Electricity Antitrust Cases I & II (USDC-Southern District of California Case Nos. CV 02-0990-RHW, CV 02-1000-RHW, and CV 02-1001-RHW). Represented Avista Energy, Inc., Puget Sound Energy, Idacorp Energy, L.P., Tucson Electric Power Company, TransAlta Energy Marketing, Inc., Sierra Pacific Industries, Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement District, Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc., Sacramento Municipal Utility District, Silicon Valley Power (City of Santa Clara), and Northern California Power Agency as cross-defendants in two cross-complaint actions filed by Reliant Energy and Duke Energy in San Diego Superior Court (Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding Nos. 4204 and 4205) against 30 wholesale electricity market participants for indemnity and declaratory relief.
• Wah Chang v. Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, L.L.C., et al. (USDC-Southern District of California Case No. 04-CV-1839-RHW); and Wah Chang v. Avista Corporation, et al. (USDC-Southern District of California Case No. 04-CV-1840-RHW). Currently represent TransAlta Energy Marketing (U.S.), Inc., TransAlta Energy Marketing (California), Inc., Idaho Power Company, and Idacorp Energy L.P. in two lawsuits filed by Wah Chang in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon against numerous defendants, alleging violations of federal antitrust laws, violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), violations of Oregon antitrust laws, and wrongful interference with contract relating to the energy crisis in California and the Pacific Northwest. These allegations include bid rigging, falsely creating congestion, and misrepresenting the source and destination of energy. After transfer by the JPML, these actions were dismissed based upon exclusive jurisdiction of FERC, the filed rate doctrine and federal preemption, and the appeal is pending in the Ninth Circuit.
• City of Tacoma v. TransAlta Energy Marketing (US) Inc., et al. (USDC-Southern District of California Case No. 04 CV 1841 RHW). Currently represent Idacorp Energy, LP, Idaho Power Co., Tucson Electric Co., and TransAlta Energy Marketing (US), Inc. in a lawsuit filed by the City of Tacoma, Washington in the United States District Court, Western District of Washington against numerous defendants, alleging violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act. These allegations are based on claims of energy market manipulation, false load scheduling and bid rigging and misrepresentation or withholding of energy supply. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages of not less than $175 million. After transfer by the JPML, the action was dismissed based upon the exclusive jurisdiction of FERC and the filed rate doctrine, and the appeal is currently pending in the Ninth Circuit.
• Port of Seattle v. TransAlta Corporation, et al. (USDC-Southern District of California Case No. CV03-2474-RWH). Currently represent TransAlta Corporation in a lawsuit filed by the Port of Seattle in the United States District Court, Western District of Washington against 17 energy producers or marketers in the United States and abroad, asserting claims under the Sherman Act (federal antitrust law), the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO), as well as Washington state antitrust and fraud claims. After transfer by the JPML, the action was dismissed based upon exclusive preemption and the filed rate doctrine, and the dismissal was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit in 2006. 175 Fed. Appx. 827 (9th Cir. March 30, 2006). Client reference: Son Tran, Esq., TransAlta Energy Marketing (US), Calgary, Alberta, Canada (403) 267-6940.
• Inverse Condemnation Cases Coordination Proceeding No. 4203 (Sacramento County Superior Court). Represented Constellation NewEnergy, Inc., AES Placerita, Avista Energy, Inc., Idaho Power Company, Salt River Project Agricultural, and Sierra Pacific Industries in connection with claims by PX Market Participants that the State owes the Participants the fair market value for the block forward energy contracts it commandeered when Edison and PG&E defaulted on their obligations in the various markets managed by the PX.
• Uzal, LLC v. Southwest Gas Corporation and Paiute Pipeline Company (USDC-District of Nevada Case No. CV-N-04-0307 HDM-VPC). Represented Southwest Gas Corporation and Paiute Pipeline Company in defending an action filed by Uzal for alleged breach of lease agreement regarding LNG plant and related gas pipelines. Client reference: Thomas R. Sheets, Esq., Southwest Gas Corporation, Las Vegas, NV (702) 876-7337.
• Idaho Power Company, dba Idacorp Energy Solutions v. Boston Properties, Inc.; Boston Properties Limited Partnership; Pacific Gas and Electric Company (USDC-Northern District of California Civil Action No. C-01-1293 CBR). Represented ESP clients in breach of contract, declaratory judgment and unfair business practices action filed by plaintiff Idaho Power against Boston Properties for its failure to pay for electricity delivered under power supply contract. Client reference: James R. Thompson, Esq., Idaho Power Company, Boise, ID (208) 388-2481.
• Idacorp Energy L.P. v. Overton Power District No. 5 (District Court, Fourth Judicial District of Idaho Civil Action No. CV OC 0107870D). Represented plaintiff Idacorp Energy in declaratory judgment, damages, and injunctive relief action against Overton Power District for improper attempt to renegotiate power supply contract and for failure to pay for electricity delivered under contract. Client reference: James R. Thompson, Esq., Idaho Power Company, Boise, ID (208) 388-2481.
• State of Nevada, by and through its agency Colorado River Commission of Nevada v. Pioneer Companies, Inc., et al. (USDC-District of Nevada Civil Action No. CV S 0926 PMP (PAL)). Obtained dismissals on Rule 12(b)(6) motions for clients Avista Energy, Inc. and Idaho Power Company in interpleader action filed by CRCN against 14 wholesale providers of electricity arising out of alleged breaches of retail power contracts by its retail customers.
• Avista Energy Inc. v. California Power Exchange Corporation (USDC-Central District of California Civil Action No. CV-01-01244 MMM (McX). Represented utility in action against CalPX for breach of PX FERC tariffs and participation agreement regarding chargebacks relating to utility defaults. Client reference: David J. Meyer, Avista Corporation, Spokane, WA (509) 495-4316.
• Independent Energy Producers, Destec Energy, Sithe Energy v. California Public Utilities Commission, PG&E, SDG&E, and SCE. Represented plaintiffs in successful appeal to Ninth Circuit of a summary judgment order issued by the Northern District of California which dismissed a challenge to QF efficiency monitoring programs under preemption clause. The decision is reported at 36 F.3d 848. Client reference: Jan Smutny-Jones, Independent Energy Producers, Sacramento, CA (916) 448-9499.
• Power Producers Coordination Proceeding No. 2654 (San Francisco Superior Court). Represented Pacific Energy and group of hydroelectric QFs in a seven-month jury trial against PG&E for breach of contract, force majeure, fraud, unfair business practices, and violations of Public Utilities Code arising out of PG&E’s denial of transmission access, manipulation of eligibility and waiting lists, discrimination against QF power in transmission service, and other abuses against QFs. After several rulings by the trial judge adverse to PG&E, the case settled while the jury was deliberating. Client Reference: Donald Liddell, Esq., Douglass & Liddell, Woodland Hills, CA (818) 593-3939.
• GWF Power Systems v. PG&E (Contra Costa Superior Court Civil Action No. 8902285); and GWF Power Systems v. PG&E (San Francisco Superior Court Civil Action No. 946120). Represented QF in actions for breach of contract, force majeures, and unfair business practices arising out of PG&E’s refusal to interconnect power plants in Pittsburg, California and Kingsburg, California. Client reference: Duane Nelsen, GWF Power Systems, Pittsburg, CA (925) 431-1441.
• AES Corporation v. PG&E (San Francisco Superior Court Civil Action No. 971146). Represented AES Corporation in action against PG&E arising out of PG&E’s breach of Final Standard Offer 4 Contract for Hunters Point power plant resulting from winning bid at BRPU auction. Client reference: Glen Davis, Agile Energy LLC, San Francisco, CA (415) 371-0601.
• Southern California Edison Co. v. Coso Partnerships; CalEnergy and Related Cross-Actions and Consolidated Action (Inyo County Superior Court Civil Action Nos. 22718, 22745). Served as lead counsel for Coso Parties and CalEnergy in defense of breach of contract action by Edison and in prosecution of Cross-Complaint and Consolidated Action against Edison for breach of contract, inducing breach of contract, slander per se, false advertising, and unfair competition). Client reference: Douglas Anderson, Esq., General Counsel, MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company, Omaha, NE (402) 231-1642.
• Mervyn’s and Dayton-Hudson Corp. v. QST Energy, Inc. (USDC-Northern District of California Civil Action No. C99-01106 MJJ ENE); QST Energy, Inc. v. Mervyn’s (USDC-Central District of Illinois Civil Action No. 99-1039); QST Energy, Inc. v. Target (USDC-Central District of Illinois Civil Action No. 99-1065). Represented client in action against ESP for breach of contract arising out of ESP’s abandonment of operations in state. Client reference: Patricia Williams, Target Corp., Hayward, CA (510) 727-5905.
• Sierra Pacific Industries v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company; California Independent System Operator (Sacramento County Superior Court Civil Action No. 01AS02027). Represented biomass QF in breach of contract action against PG&E, for failure to pay for energy delivered by plaintiff, and an unfair business practices and antitrust action against PG&E and the CalISO, for their concerted efforts to deny plaintiff the right to change Scheduling Coordinators and precluding SPI’s access to the California energy market. Client reference: Robert A. Ellery, Sierra Pacific Industries, Anderson, CA (530) 378-8179.
• CPC International (Civil Action No. 971630); Thermal Energy Development Partnership (Civil Action No. 971632); and Simpson Paper Company v. PG&E (Civil Action No. 971631). Represented plaintiffs in San Francisco Superior Court coordinated actions relating to violation of CPUC’s system benefit test for QF transmission system reinforcements, fraudulent misrepresentation concerning physical transmission constraints, and unfair business practices. Client reference: Wayne Nelson III, Harbert Cogen, Inc., Birmingham, AL (205) 987-5541.
• Sacramento Power, Inc. v. SMUD (Sacramento Superior Court Civil Action No. 96AS01524). Represented SPI in action against SMUD for breach of contract respecting cogeneration plant.
• NP Cogen, Inc. v. Southern California Edison (Los Angeles County Superior Court-Central District Civil Action No. BC 247 632); (Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4176). Represented cogeneration QF in action to recover monies owed by Edison for electricity and capacity delivered under QF contract. Client reference: David M. Ascher, Newark Group Industries, Inc., Cranford, NJ (908) 276-4000.
• Luz Solar Partners LTD v. Southern California Edison, California Independent System Operator (Sacramento County Superior Court Civil Action No. 01AS02788). Represented solar QF in successful action to recover over $9 million in deliveries to Edison and to suspend performance, pending payment. Obtained TRO and Preliminary Injunction against Edison and ISO. Client reference: Janet Heck Doyle, Kramer Junction Company, Evergreen, CO (303) 670-5942.