Energy Litigation
CONTACTS +

Representative Engagements

Jump to engagement type: FERC Litigation | NERC Litigation | State Regulatory Litigation | Federal & State Court Actions | Antitrust & Business Practices Claims | Shareholder Litigation | Arbitration | Takings/Constitutional Claims | Other Court Litigation | Appellate Litigation

The matters described below are examples of the experience that Crowell & Moring attorneys have gained during and/or prior to their tenure with the firm. To view additional energy practice experience, please see the index at the bottom of this page or click here to access the energy representative engagements landing page.


FERC Litigation

  • In the Matters of Murphy Flat Mesa, LLC, Murphy Flat Energy, LLC, and Murphy Flat Wind, LLC, Idaho Public Utilities Commission Case Nos. IPC-E-1056, IPC-E-1057, and IPC-E-1058
    Representing Murphy Flat Power, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Wind Energy, before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, and other judicial forums in enforcing its rights under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) to secure a power purchase agreement with Idaho Power Company for the Murphy Flats wind generation projects. Development of these wind projects was impaired by the failure of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission and Idaho Power Company to implement their PURPA obligations. On November 20, 2012, FERC issued an order granting our request to initiate an enforcement action. This is the first time FERC has initiated its own enforcement action to enforce PURPA.
  • Grouse Creek Wind Park, LLC, et al, (Grouse Creek), Docket No. EL13-39-000
    Representing Grouse Creek before FERC to enforce the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA).  This case represented the second time the firm's attorneys obtained an unprecedented decision by FERC finding that the Idaho Public Utilities Commission had violated PURPA and then initiating FERC's own enforcement action to enforce PURPA.
  • Cedar Creek Wind, LLC, Docket No. EL11-59-000
    Cedar Creek Wind, LLC in proceedings before FERC, the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC), and the Idaho Supreme Court, and subsequent settlement negotiations, to enforce the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA). The firm's attorneys won a highly unusual ruling from FERC not only upholding Cedar Creek's challenge that the IPUC's decision was inconsistent both with PURPA and FERC's implementing regulations, but also strongly suggesting to the IPUC how it should comply with them.
  • PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., FERC Docket Nos. ER11-2875 and EL11-20
    Represented Competitive Power Ventures in FERC proceedings concerning PJM Interconnection's Reliability Pricing Model (RPM) capacity market, including the establishment and amendment of the Minimum Offer Price Rule.
  • Pittsfield Generating Company, L.P
    Represented Pittsfield Generating Company, L.P. in a in a FERC proceeding concerning ISO New England Inc. tariff revisions regarding cold weather operations in the Forward Capacity Market
  • Cedar Creek Wind Energy, LLC, Docket No. RC11-1-000, and Milford Wind Corridor Phase I, LLC, Docket No. RC11-2-000
    Invenergy Wind Development LLC in proceedings before FERC to contest the North American Electric Reliability Corporation's (NERC's) determination that appellant wind developers were properly registered as Transmission Owners and Operators and therefore subject to additional compliance obligations.
  • Puget Sound Energy, Inc., Docket No. ER10-1436-000, ER11-3375 and ER12-778-000
    Invenergy Wind North America LLC and American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) in proceedings before FERC defeating an effort by Puget Sound Energy, a transmission provider, to hike the fees wind energy companies would pay for generator imbalances, which could have cost Invenergy and other wind suppliers many millions of dollars a year and likely would have led other providers to impose similar fee hikes. Subsequently, represented Invenergy Wind North America and its affiliate, Vantage Wind Energy LLC, in proceedings before FERC litigating Puget's second attempt to impose increased imbalance fees as well as increased transmission rates.  Both cases were settled at rates significantly below those proposed by Puget.
  • Renewable Energy Systems Americas
    Represented Renewable Energy Systems Americas (RES Americas) in several proceedings before FERC involving the Midwest Intercontinental System Operator's development of a new generator interconnection product, termed Net Zero Interconnection.  The litigation was resolved in settlement.
  • KeySpan-Ravenswood, LLC v. New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. EL05-17-000
    Reliant Energy, Inc. in a 2008 evidentiary hearing and settlement proceedings to recover lost capacity revenues from the summer of 2002 because of the New York Independent System Operator's (NYISO) failure to correctly "translate" its installed capacity (ICAP) requirement for load serving entities (LSEs) into an unforced capacity (UCAP) requirement, as required by its tariff.
  • Kern River Gas Transmission Co., Docket Nos.RP04-274-006, et al.
    Reliant Energy Services, Inc. in a 2008 evidentiary hearing and settlement proceedings to obtain additional evidence on return on equity (ROE) component of pipeline rate in view of new FERC policy permitting inclusion of master limited partnerships in ROE proxy groups.
  • Connecticut Municipal Electric Energy Cooperative, et al. v. Milford Power Co., LLC, et al., Docket No. EL08-17-000
    Milford Power Company, LLC in complaint and settlement proceedings challenging its continuing eligibility for a reliability must-run (RMR) agreement and in negotiation of subsequent settlement agreement.
  • Maryland Public Utilities Commission v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Docket Nos. EL08-34-000 and EL08-47-000
    Reliant Energy Corporation in complaint and paper hearing proceedings to terminate certain exemptions from PJM energy market offer caps and consider changes to the three pivotal supplier market power test.
  • Ameren Energy Marketing Co., et al., Docket Nos. ER07-169 and ER07-170
    Constellation Energy Commodities Group, Inc. in hearing and settlement negotiations to resolve 2007 ancillary services rates for affiliate sales to Ameren IP, Ameren CILCO, and Ameren CIPS.
  • New York Independent System Operator, Docket Nos. ER06-456-000, ER06-954-000, EL05-121-000, ER07-803-000, ER05-123-000
    New York Power Authority (NYPA) and KeySpan Corporation affiliates in numerous FERC proceedings involving the NYISO, on subjects including ICAP, UCAP, status service, reserves market structure, and price mitigation.
  • Devon Energy, et al., Docket Nos. ER06-118-000, et al.
    New England generation subsidiaries of NRG Energy, Inc. in obtaining FERC approval of the cost-of-service RMR Agreement with ISO New England, Inc. and related settlement agreements for service provided between January 1, 2006 and the implementation of a New England Locational Installed Capacity (LICAP) market.
  • Norwalk Harbor, LLC, Docket Nos. ER07-759-000, et al.
    NRG Energy, Inc.'s Norwalk Harbor generating facility in a settlement and administrative hearing with respect to its application for an RMR agreement with ISO New England Inc.
  • Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc., Docket Nos. ER05-6-000, et al.
    Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC in litigation of seams elimination adjustment charges (SEAC) arising due to the elimination of multiple transmission charges for inter-market transmission arrangements.
  • Milford Power Co., LLC, Docket Nos. ER05-163-000, et al.
    Milford Power Company, LLC in the settlement proceedings and administrative hearing with respect to the cost-of-service RMR agreement with ISO New England, Inc. accepted by FERC for the 2004-2005 interim period prior to implementation of a New England LICAP market.
  • PSEG Power Connecticut, LLC, Docket Nos. ER05-231-000, et al.
    PSEG Power Connecticut, LLC in the administrative hearing into the rate filed in its 2004-2005 interim RMR agreement with ISO New England Inc.
  • ISO New England, Inc. and New England Power Pool, Docket No. ER05-508-000
    Duke Energy North America, LLC in a settlement and administrative hearing with respect to changes to ISO New England Inc. market rules related to the scheduling and compensation of generation during extreme cold weather conditions.
  • Duke Energy Vermillion, LLC and Duke Energy Lee, LLC, Docket No. ER05-123-000
    Generation subsidiaries of Duke Energy Corporation in settlement of litigation with respect to reactive power compensation tariffs.
  • Bridgeport Energy LLC, Docket Nos. ER05-611-000, et al.
    Bridgeport Energy, LLC in proceedings associated with its filing of a cost-of-service RMR agreement with ISO New England Inc. to provide reliability services for the period of June 1, 2005 until the implementation of a New England LICAP market.
  • Devon Power Co., LLC, et al., Docket Nos. ER03-563-030, et al.
    Duke Energy North America, LLC (a competitive power supplier affiliate of Duke Energy) and Milford Power Company, LLC in the administrative hearing leading to an initial decision on the demand curve parameters and other design features of the ISO New England Inc. LICAP market and subsequent settlement proceedings establishing the Forward Capacity Market (FCM).
  • Connecticut Power & Light Co., Docket. No. EL03-123-000
    Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC in litigation over standard offer service contracts.
  • Ameren Energy Generating Co., et al., Docket No. EC03-53-000
    The Electric Power Supply Association (EPSA) in litigation concerning the standards governing a regulated utility's acquisition of utility assets of its unregulated affiliate.
  • Duke Energy Trading & Marketing, LLC, Docket Nos. EL03-152-000 and IN03-10-000
    Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC in investigation and show cause proceedings concerning the California energy markets. The "California Energy Crisis" of 2000-2001 spawned a wide array of regulatory, political, and litigation responses, and the firm represented Duke Energy in every forum. At FERC, we defended Duke Energy in proceedings, involving more than 100 parties, designed to provide refunds to California electricity purchasers, and in proceedings opened to investigate charges of "gaming" behavior in the western electric energy markets. The firm achieved a "global settlement" of all these proceedings to which the California government agencies, the California investor-owned utilities, and FERC were all parties. The firm also represented Duke Energy before a variety of western state government agencies that exercise independent law enforcement authority and before a select investigating committee empanelled by the California State Senate. The California Energy Crisis also generated more than two dozen private lawsuits on behalf of electricity consumers in western states. The firm's attorneys acted as co-lead counsel for the power generators and marketers named in these cases, and steered them to successful results through the Federal District Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court. Collectively, these investigations, suits, and proceedings involved every conceivable economic, scientific, and regulatory aspect of the western energy markets.
  • Public Utilities Providing Service in California Under Sellers' Choice Contracts, Docket No. EL04-108
    Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC in prehearing and settlement proceedings related to the impact of the California ISO Corporation's implementation of nodal pricing on "sellers' choice" delivery point provisions in existing bilateral contracts.
  • San Diego Gas & Electric Co., et al. v. Sellers of Energy and Ancillary Services, et al., Docket Nos. EL00-95 and EL00-98
    Duke Energy Corporation and various Duke Energy subsidiaries and affiliates in the California ISO Refund Hearing and related proceedings arising out of the 2000-2001 collapse of the California energy markets.
  • Nevada Power Co. and Sierra Power Co. v. Enron Power Marketing, Inc., et al., Docket Nos. EL02-28-000, et al.
    Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC in prehearing and settlement proceedings related to certain long-term power sales agreements entered into by the Nevada utilities during the 2000-2001 western power crisis.
  • New York Power Authority v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Docket No. EL05-123-000
    NYPA in a complaint proceeding at FERC against Consolidated Edison Company of New York alleging violation of FERC Station Power Policies.
  • Kern River Gas Transmission Co., Docket No. RP04-274-000
    Constellation Energy Group in obtaining favorable initial decision on pipeline rates.


North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) Litigation

  • New Harquahala Generating Co., LLC, RA 070104
    Appeal of a decision to include Harquahala on the NERC Compliance Registry as a Transmission Owner and Transmission Operator in connection with 500 kV generation interconnection facilities that connect the Harquahala generating facility to the Hassayampa Switchyard.


State Regulatory Litigation

  • Murphy Flat Power, LLC, et al., Docket No. EL12-108-000
    Representing Murphy Flat Power, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Wind Energy, before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC), and other judicial forums in enforcing its rights under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) to secure a power purchase agreement with Idaho Power Company (IPC) for the Murphy Flat wind generation projects. Development of these wind projects was impaired by the failure of the IPUC and IPC to lawfully implement and effectuate the State's avoided cost program. On November 20, 2012, FERC issued an order granting our request to initiate a PURPA enforcement action—the first time it has ever done so.
  • In the Matter of the Application of Big Savage, LLC for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to Construct a 138-kV Generator Lead Line in Allegany County, Maryland and Request for Expedited Review, Maryland Public Service Commission Case No. 9268
    Big Savage, LLC, a subsidiary of EverPower Wind Holdings, Inc., in obtaining a certificate of public convenience and necessity for the construction of a 5.5 mile overhead generator lead line to interconnect a proposed 200 MW Pennsylvania wind facility to the transmission system in Maryland.
  • In the Matter of the Application of PacifiCorp D/B/A Rocky Mountain Power for a Determination Regarding a Firm Energy Sales Agreement Between Rocky Mountain Power and Cedar Creek Wind, LLC, Idaho Supreme Court Docket No. 39137-2011, IPUC Case Nos. PAC-E-11-01 et al.
    Cedar Creek Wind, LLC, a subsidiary of Summit Power and the developer of five wind energy power plants, in reaching a settlement with PacifiCorp's Idaho utility, after litigation before the IPUC, FERC, and the Idaho Supreme Court, whereby Rocky Mountain Power will purchase power from Cedar Creek's wind plants at a published avoided cost rate for a qualifying facility (QF). By appeal to FERC, firm attorneys convinced the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC) to reconsider its prior QF eligibility requirement ruling, thus enabling the investor-owned utility's approved purchase from the proposed wind projects.
  • In the Matter of Whether New Generating Facilities Are Needed to Meet Long-Term Demand for Standard Offer Service, Maryland Public Service Commission, Case No. 9214
    CPV Maryland, LLC in a proceeding in which the Maryland Public Service Commission required Maryland's regulated electric distribution companies to issue requests for proposals seeking to enter into long-term contracts to promote the development of up to 1,500 MW of natural gas-fired generation.
  • Application of Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Company for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, West Virginia Public Service Commission, Docket No. 07-0508-E-CN, and Virginia State Corporation Commission, Case Nos. POE-2007-00033 and POE-2007-00031
    CPV Power Development, Inc. in opposing Trans-Allegheny Intrastate Line Co.'s ("TrAILCo") efforts to obtain certificates of public convenience and necessity to construct a 500-kV transmission line in West Virginia and Virginia that would import coal-fired generation into the region where our client was developing two environmentally friendly natural-gas fired generating facilities.
  • Staff's Petition for Designation Of Competitive Renewable Energy Zones, Public Utility Commission of Texas, Project No. 33672
    CPV Renewable Energy Company, LC and CPV Rattlesnake Den Renewable Energy Company, LLC in proceeding to establish competitive renewable energy zones in Texas.
  • In Re Application of CPV Maryland, LLC, Maryland Public Service Commission, Case No. 9129
    CPV Power Development, Inc. in a proceeding for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct a 640 MW natural gas-fired facility in Charles County, Maryland. Our attorneys successfully obtained the certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN) on behalf of its client and has filed for extensions of the air permit portion of the CPCN.


Federal and State Court Actions

  • Vestas, a leading turbine vendor and wind plant developer, in a Court of Claims case arising from the U.S. Department of Energy's rescission of a lease of federal lands to build a wind farm.
  • Areva NP Inc. v. The Babcock & Wilcox Co., et al.
    Firm attorneys are representing defendants The Babcock & Wilcox Co. in litigation pending in Virginia State Court in Lynchburg, Virginia. Plaintiff alleges several theories of liability, including breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment. Defendants filed counterclaims seeking a declaratory judgment confirming Defendants' rights under the applicable agreements and declaring that certain of Areva's claims are barred as a matter of law. The parties regularly compete for various contracts from utility operators relating to the operation and maintenance of certain nuclear steam generating units located around the United States.
  • Bridgeport Energy, LLC v. NUSCO, Superior Court of the Judicial District of New Britain, Connecticut
    Bridgeport Energy, LLC in a lawsuit for breach of a long-term supply of a specialized energy product.
  • A merchant combined cycle gas-fired plant developer in pursuing warranty claims against party that built and operated the plant under a long term contract.
  • New Jersey Board of Public Utilities et al. v. FERC
    The firm represents CPV Power Development, Inc. in an appeal before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals of a final FERC order establishing rules for the PJM electric capacity market. 
  • Socap Int'., Ltd. v. Mobil Sales & Supply Corp., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York 
    The plaintiff in a breach of contract claim concerning oil stored in Dakar, Senegal.
  • Westmoreland-LG&E Partners v. Virginia Elec. & Power Co., Virginia Circuit Court, City of Richmond
    Westmoreland-LG&E Partners in a contractual dispute against Virginia Electric & Power Company before the Virginia Circuit Court, City of Richmond.
  • Sithe New Boston, LLC v. Duke Energy Trading & Marketing, Massachusetts Superior Court, Suffolk County
    Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC, a natural gas marketer, in a contract dispute with an independent power producer.
  • San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. California Energy Co., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
    California Energy Co. in a proceeding where a utility company sought to cancel its power purchase agreement with the client.
  • Berlie Technologies v. Blake Construction Co., Inc., Virginia Circuit Court, Fairfax County
    A subcontractor in disputes arising from the design and construction of a water treatment facility.
  • Milford Power Co. LLC v. PDC Milford Power LLC, Chancery Court, Delaware
    Plaintiff Milford Power Company, LLC in a declaratory judgment action involving a limited liability company dispute.
  • PDC Milford Power LLC v. Milford Holdings, LLC, et al., U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
    Defendant Milford Holdings, LLC in a successful motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint.
  • Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. FERC, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
    The Competitive Generators' Group in a proceeding that affirmed FERC's station power policies.
  • H.Q. Energy Services (U.S.), Inc. v. New York Independent System Operator, Inc., U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
    KeySpan-Ravenswood in proceedings at FERC and in the DC Circuit (sub nom. Consolidated Edison of N.Y. v. FERC) concerning the NYISO's authority to change prices produced by competitive bidding.
  • Edison Mission Energy
    Appellate litigation on behalf of a cogeneration project owned and operated by Edison Mission Energy against Virginia Electric and Power Company in the Virginia Supreme Court, in connection with a contract dispute between the utility and the electric generator involving the applicability of the force majeure clause in the power purchase agreement.


Antitrust and Business Practices Claims

  • Samuel D. Leggett, et al. v. Duke Energy Corporation, et al., Tennessee Superior Court
    Representation of Duke Energy Corporation and Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, L.L.C. in their defense against state antitrust claims brought by a putative class of indirect purchasers of wholesale natural gas. The Supreme Court of Tennessee decided in favor of the defendants-appellants, including Duke Energy, reversing the Court of Appeals' decision and agreeing with the trial court that federal law preempted state claims. This ruling, which impacts every participant in the wholesale natural gas supply chain, acknowledges that the field of wholesale natural gas transactions is subject to regulation and review only under federal law.
  • Natural Gas Transport v. KN Energy, Inc., U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska
    KN Energy, Inc. against claims of antitrust violations and deceptive practices in connection with gas transportation.
  • Multiple private plaintiff federal and state court litigation, multiple federal and state courts in California
    Duke Energy North America and Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC in multiple lawsuits alleging antitrust and business practices claims in connection with the California energy markets.


Shareholder Litigation

  • In re Geodyne Resources Litigation, U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
    Defendant PaineWebber in a class action brought by investors of hundreds of millions of dollars in oil and gas drilling programs. The investors alleged that they purchased the securities based on misleading disclosure and false financial information.
  • In re Duke Energy Corp. Securities Litigation, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and Western District of North Carolina
    Duke Energy Corporation in shareholder litigation in New York concerning reporting under the securities laws and related employee shareholder ERISA litigation in North Carolina.


Arbitration

  • Colstrip Energy Limited Partnership v. Montana Public Service Commission and Northwestern Corporation
    Represented the utility, Northwestern, against a waste coal project (Colstrip) in connection with disputes arising out of the compensation scheme under a long-term power purchase agreement between Northwestern and Colstrip. The suit was originally filed in Montana State Court, but the firm successfully invoked the arbitration clause under the contract and subsequently represented Northwestern in the arbitration.
  • NRG Energy, Inc. v. Connecticut Light & Power Co.
    NRG Energy, Inc. in arbitration over Connecticut generating facilities' obligations to pay retail station power charges under interconnection agreement for station power delivered at transmission voltage.
  • Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Duke Energy Trading & Marketing, LLC, JAMS
    Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC in arbitration over the terms of a true-up provision in a settlement agreement entered into with a large California investor-owned utility in 2001.
  • Bridgeport Energy, LLC v. Siemens Westinghouse Power Corp., American Arbitration Association
    The developer of a gas-fired generation plant in arbitration before the American Arbitration Association concerning warranty claims for turbine defects against the EPC contractor.
  • Ocean State Power v. ProGas, Ltd., American Arbitration Association
    Ocean State Power in an arbitration of provisions of two natural gas contracts in a Toronto-based arbitration under the rules of the American Arbitration Association.
  • Ebasco v. Avondale Shipyards, American Arbitration Association
    Avondale Shipyards in an arbitration of construction and warranty claims relating to a hydro-electric plant.
  • Turboven Maracay Co., Inc. v. General Electric Int'l, Inc., International Court of Arbitration, International Chamber of Commerce
    The developer of several gas-fired generation plants in South America in arbitration before the International Chamber of Commerce in claims against the EPC contractor for defective and untimely construction of the plants.
  • PSEG Nuclear v. Atlantic City Electric and Delmarva Power & Light, contractual arbitration
    Atlantic City Electric and Delmarva Power & Light in an arbitration proceeding involving assignment of claims against the U.S. Department of Energy for failure to remove spent nuclear fuel.


Takings/Constitutional Claims

  • Duke Energy Trading & Marketing, LLC v. Davis, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
    Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC in a suit against the governor of California for his unconstitutional seizure of Duke Energy's long-term power contracts.


Other Court Litigation

  • PPL Energy Plus, LLC et al. v. Lee A. Solomon et al., Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-00745-PSG-ES
    CPV Power Development, Inc. in a lawsuit filed in 2011 in New Jersey federal district court. A CPV subsidiary was a successful bidder in a solicitation last year sponsored by the State of New Jersey for new, clean, gas-fired electric power plants. Plaintiffs, who are a coalition of existing generators and New Jersey utilities, sued the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (BPU) to stop the solicitation from going forward, claiming that the statute that created the New Jersey solicitation violates the Supremacy and Commerce Clauses of the U.S. Constitution.
  • PPL v. Nazarian
    The firm represents CPV Maryland, LLC in federal district court litigation challenging the constitutionality of a Maryland competitive procurement for new combined cycle natural gas power plants.  Plaintiffs challenged the RFP on grounds of federal preemption and violation of the dormant Commerce Clause. 
  • Aectra v. Stewart Petroleum, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
    The plaintiff in a claim resulting from the destruction of gas in tanks owned by the defendant.
  • LaPrairie Group Contractors (International) Ltd. v. CE Casecnan Ltd., et al., Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco
    Mid-American Energy Holdings Company in an ownership dispute between shareholders involving a hydro-electric project in the Philippines.
  • United Refining Co. v. Department of Energy, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Texas
    The plaintiff in litigation involving "new" oil/ "old" oil price regulations.
  • United Refining Co. v. Maze, et al., U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
    Our attorneys represented the plaintiff in civil RICO litigation against former executives of a refining company in connection with its retail gas subsidiary.


Appellate Litigation

Over the years, the firm has represented numerous clients in appellate proceedings. Below is a sample of recent representations:

  • Blumenthal v. FERC, No. 03-1032 (D.C. Cir.)
  • California Independent System Operator v. FERC, No. 02-1287 (D.C. Cir.)
  • California Public Utilities Commission v. FERC, No. 01-71051 (9th Cir.)
  • Central Maine Power v. FERC, No. 01-1376 (1st Cir.)
  • Electric Power Supply Ass'n v. FERC, No. 03-1182 (D.C. Cir.)
  • Entergy Services v. FERC, No. 02-1199 (D.C. Cir.)
  • KLNG v. FERC, No. 06-1097 (D.C. Cir.)
  • KeySpan-Ravenswood, LLC v. FERC, No. 02-111 (D.C. Cir.)
  • National Propane Gas Ass'n v. FERC, No. 03-1356 (D.C. Cir.)
  • California, et al. v. NRG Energy, Inc., No. 02-57202 (9th Cir.)
  • PSEG Energy Resources & Trade v. FERC, No. 02-1276 (D.C. Cir.)
  • Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, et al. v. Dynegy Power Marketing Inc., et al., No. 03-55191 (9th Cir.)
  • Sithe New England v. FERC, No. 01-1933 (1st Cir.)
  • Southern Co. Services v. FERC, No. 02-1373 (D.C. Cir.)
  • California ex rel. Lockyer, v. FERC, No. 02-73093 (9th Cir.)
  • Connecticut v. United States Department of Commerce, Nos. 07-4522-cv and 07-4593-cv (2d Cir.)
  • T&E Pastorino Nursery, et al. v. Duke Energy Trading & Marketing LLC, et al., No. 03-56793 (9th Cir.)
  • American Electric Power Services v. FERC, No. 02-1346 (D.C. Cir. 2003)
  • Consolidated Edison v. FERC, No. 01-1503 (D.C. Cir. 2003)
  • Duke Energy Trading & Marketing v. FERC, No. 01-1163 (D.C. Cir. 2003)
  • Dynegy Power Marketing Inc v. FERC, No. 02-1009 (D.C. Cir. 2003)
  • Entergy Services v. FERC, No. 01-1487 (D.C. Cir. 2003)
  • Pacific Gas & Electric Co v. FERC, No. 03-1150 (D.C. Cir. 2003)
  • PG&E Gas Transmission NW v. FERC, No. 01-1167 (D.C. Cir. 2003)
  • Public Utility Dist. No. 1 of Snohomish County (Washington) v. FERC, No. 02-1366 (D.C. Cir. 2003)
  • American Electric Power Svc v. FERC, No. 02-1061 (D.C. Cir. 2002)
  • City of San Diego v. FERC, No. 01-70609 (9th Cir. 2002)
  • Duke Energy Trading & Marketing v. Davis, No. 01-55770 (9th Cir. 2002)
  • Dynegy Power Marketing Inc v. FERC, No. 02-1161 (D.C. Cir. 2002)
  • Mississippi River Transmission Corp v. FERC, No. 01-1503 (D.C. Cir. 2001)

INDEX

Energy Compliance, Investigations & Enforcement : Representative Engagements

Energy Regulatory : Representative Engagements

Energy Transactions : Representative Engagements

Renewable Energy : Representative Engagements