Contact: Gordon Erspamer, Peter Hanschen, or Robert Loeffler
Morrison & Foerster has handled some of the energy industry's most complex and difficult disputes arising from the recent
pendulum swings between deregulation/restructuring and re-regulation, exemplified most recently in the firm's work on several
major cases arising out of the California energy crisis.
Morrison & Foerster has successfully litigated some of the energy sector's most important cases, including state and federal
jurisdictional disputes under the Federal Power Act; controversies regarding state implementation of PURPA; petitions for
review or appeals challenging state PUC decisions; antitrust claims against electric or gas industry companies; multi-million
dollar contract disputes; disputes between energy service providers and utilities or commercial/industrial customers; controversies
concerning retail wheeling and transmission access; disputes over the extent of pipeline service obligations; and securities
cases arising out of events such as the California energy crisis.
In addition, the firm's energy specialists have grappled with complex issues involving preemption, the deregulation and restructuring
of the electric and gas industries; transmission access and pricing; the enforcement of wholesale power contracts; and anti-competitive
practices.
Representative Matters
In Re Gas Antitrust Cases, J.C.C.P. No. 4221 (San Diego Superior Court). Morrison & Foerster represented El Paso Corp. and its affiliates both at FERC and in multi-district
antitrust litigation involving El Paso's alleged manipulation of natural gas prices during the period of increased demand
for gas and electricity in Western states in 2000-2001.
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). The firm currently represents
12 of 50 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.
Idacorp Energy L.P. v. Overton Power District No. 5 (District Court, Fourth Judicial District of Idaho Civil Action No. CV OC 0107870D). The firm represented Idacorp Energy
in declaratory judgment, damages, and injunctive relief action against Overton Power District in an action for the breach
of a ten-year power purchase agreement signed at the height of the California energy crisis.
California Attorney General v. Various Electricity Generators (USDC-Northern District of California). The firm currently represents 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 we successfully removed to federal court. The State claims 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 were successful in having the actions dismissed based upon the filed-rate doctrine and
federal preemption.
Avista Energy Inc. v. California Power Exchange Corporation (USDC-Central District of California Civil Action No. CV-01-01244 MMM (McX). The firm was the first of about 20 market participants
to obtain a TRO enjoining Cal PX from “chargebacks” against innocent market participants for defaults of PG&E and Edison.
NP Cogen, Inc. and Luz Solar Partners LTD v. Southern California Edison, Cal ISO (Los Angeles County Superior Court-Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4176). The firm represented cogeneration
QF and solar QF in action to recover monies owed by Edison for electricity and capacity delivered under QF contracts and against
Cal ISO for concerted refusal to deal.
Power Producers Coordination Proceeding No. 2654 (San Francisco Superior Court). The firm represented several 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.
Independent Energy Producers, Destec Energy, Sithe Energy v. California Public Utilities Commission, PG&E, SDG&E, and SCE. The firm represented Plaintiffs in the successful appeal to the Ninth Circuit of a summary judgment order issued by the Northern
District of California which dismissed a challenge to the QF efficiency monitoring programs under the preemption clause. The
decision is reported at 36 F.3d 848.
Sierra Pacific Industries v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company; California Independent System Operator (Sacramento County Superior Court Civil Action No. 01AS02027). The firm successfully represented Sierra Pacific Industries
in $100 million case for breach of contract and concerted refusal to deal against major investor-owned utility and the Cal
ISO. In this action we secured the right, through injunction and summary judgment, for SPI as an independent power producer,
to obtain access to the California energy markets independent of the investor-owned utilities.
North Baja Pipeline. Represent the developer of new natural gas pipeline in state court environmental challenges to State Lands Commission approval
of a FERC-licensed pipeline in Imperial County, California. Advise the client on a legal challenge to an environmental impact
report and related issues.
