Litigation

Prior results do not guarantee future outcomes.

Eric’s major cases include:

  • Winding Creek Solar, LLC v. Peevey et al., Ninth Cir. No. 17-17531 (argued February 2019) (Argued for solar project developer challenging California Renewable Energy Market Access Tariff as non-compliant with PURPA).
  • Maytown Sand & Gravel, LLC v. Thurston County, 198 Wn.App. 560, 395 P.2d 149 (2017), affirmed, 191 Wn.2d 392, 423 P.3d 233 (2018) (Successful defense on appeal of $14 million award, the then-largest award for abuse of land use process by local government in Washington history) (co-counsel with Foster Pepper, which represent co-plaintiff Port of Tacoma).
  • Merced Irrigation District v. Barclays Bank PLLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-04878-VM-GMG (2018) ($29 million settlement in class action claims against Barclays Bank for manipulation of four major Western electricity market hubs in 2006-08 (co-counsel for class)).
  • Allco Renewable Energy Limited v. Massachusetts Electric Co., 875 F.3d 64 (1st Cir. 2017) (Argued appeal of PURPA enforcement/jurisdiction matter).
  • PaTu Wind Farm, LLC v. Portland General Electric Co., 150 FERC ¶ 61,032, reh’g denied, 151 FERC ¶ 61,223 (2016), appeals denied sub nom., Portland General Electric Co. v. FERC, 854 F.3d 692 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (Successful litigation at FERC and before D.C. Circuit involving PURPA and FPA requirements for scheduling and delivery of power from small wind farm in Eastern Oregon to Portland General Electric’s service territory). 
  • Public Utility District No. 1 of Okanogan County v. State of Washington, 182 Wn.2d 519, 342 P.3d 308 (2015) (amicus brief filed on behalf of Washington Public Utility Districts Association, Snohomish County PUD & Washington Rural Electric Cooperative Association concerning rights of publicly-owned utilities to condemn lands administered by the Washington Department of Natural Resources).
  • Kootenai Electric Cooperative, Inc., 143 FERC ¶ 61,232, reh’g denied, 145 FERC ¶ 61,229 (2013) (co-counsel for rural electric cooperative; obtained declaratory order from FERC clarifying that coop’s transmission rights allow it to deliver power from its Idaho “Qualifying Facility” into Oregon to obtain favorable “avoided cost” rates under PURPA).
  • Lakey et al. v. Puget Sound Energy, Inc., 176 Wash.2d 909, 296 P.3d 860 (2013) (amicus brief filed on behalf of Washington Public Utility Districts Association, Snohomish County PUD, Clark County PUD & Seattle City Light successfully defeating nuisance claim for exposure to electromagnetic fields).
  • Greater Wenatchee Regional Events Center Public Facilities District v. City of Wenatchee, Washington Supreme Court No. 86552-3 (decision issued October 25, 2012) (represented Public Facilities District in challenge involving interpretation of municipal debt limits under Washington State Constitution) (co-counsel with Donald S. Cohen).  
  • Enron Power Marketing, Inc., et al., 119 FERC ¶ 63,013 (2007), vacated as moot in light of settlement, 123 FERC ¶ 61,249 (2008), order reinstated, 126 FERC ¶ 61,230 (2009) (headed legal team in administrative trial resulting in order for disgorgement of $1.6 billion in unjust profits from Enron Corp. and declaration that $180 million “termination payment” sought from client is unjust and unreasonable and therefore contrary to the Federal Power Act). 
  • Portland General Electric Co. v. Bonneville Power Administration, 501 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2007) & Golden Northwest Aluminum Co. v. Bonneville Power Administration, 501 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 2902 (2008) (supervised group of attorneys who successfully challenged BPA contracts involving the Northwest Power Act’s Residential Exchange Program, ultimately resulting in savings of approximately $1 billion to publicly-owned utility customers of BPA; primary drafter of joint brief successfully opposing Supreme Court review of related case)(related case: Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, Washington v. Bonneville Power Administration, 506 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2007)).
  • Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, Washington v. Morgan Stanley Capital Group, Inc., 471 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2006), aff’d and remanded, Morgan Stanley Capital Group, Inc. v. Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, Washington, 128 S.Ct. 2733 (2008) (successfully briefed and argued challenge to major FERC order in the Ninth Circuit; primary drafter of joint Supreme Court brief).
  • Spectrum Glass Co. v. Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, Washington, 119 P.3d 854 (Wash. App. Div. I, 2005) (briefed and assisted in successful defense of claim asserting that utility had entered into fixed-rate contract for power supply).
  • Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, Washington v. FERC, 272 F.3d 607 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (successfully briefed and argued challenge to FERC Order No. 2000 suggesting it could approve Regional Transmission Organization in the absence of clear showing of consumer benefits).
  • Union Pacific Fuels, LP v. FERC, 129 F.3d 157 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (briefed and argued successful defense of agency order concerning natural gas pipeline ratemaking).
  • Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. FERC, 967 F. Supp. 1166 (D. Az. 1997) (successful defense of agency order concerning compliance with Endangered Species Act in context of hydroelectric licensing).
  • Public Utilities Commission of California v. FERC, 100 F.3d 1451 (9th Cir. 1996) (briefed and argued successful defense of agency order concerning federal jurisdiction over natural gas pipeline).
  • Associated Gas Distributors v. FERC, 88 F.3d 1105 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (successful defense of FERC’s landmark Order No. 636, which resulted in major restructuring of regulation of the natural gas industry).
  • Association of Oil Pipelines v. FERC, 83 F.3d 1424 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (briefed and argued successful defense of major order reforming regulation of oil pipeline industry).
  • Bangor Hydro-Electric Co. v. FERC, 78 F.3d 659 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (briefed and argued challenge to agency order concerning fish passage requirements for federally-licensed hydroelectric project).
  • National Fuel Gas Supply Corp. v. FERC, 59 F.3d 1281 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (briefed and argued successful defense of agency order reforming natural gas pipeline contracts).
  • El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. FERC, 50 F.3d 23 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (briefed and argued successful defense of agency order concerning jurisdiction over natural gas facilities crossing international border).
  • Shell Oil Co. v. FERC, 47 F.3d 1186 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (briefed and argued successful defense of agency order concerning regulation of offshore oil pipelines under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act).
  • Independent Energy Producers Association, Inc. v. California Public Utilities Commission, 36 F.3d 848 (9th Cir. 1994) (filed brief for amicus curiae concerning scope of federal preemption for setting rates for independent power producers under the Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act)
  • Wisconsin Public Service Commission v. FERC, 32 F.3d 1165 (7th Cir. 1994) (successfully briefed and argued appeal of agency ordered concerning authority to require construction of fish passage facilities on federally-licensed hydroelectric projects).
  • Town of Boylston v. FERC, 21 F3d 1130 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (briefed and argued case involving charges for nuclear decommissioning costs).
  • PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County, Washington v. Washington Dept. of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700 (1994) (represented FERC in process of developing unified federal position on U.S. Supreme Court appeal involving scope of mandatory conditions that are permissible for states to impose on FERC hydropower licensees under Clean Water Act Section 401(a)).
  • Elizabethtown Gas Co. v. FERC, 10 F.3d 866 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (briefed and argued successful defense of agency order allowing “unbundling” of natural gas pipeline transmission and commodity rates and allowing market-based rates for commodity).
  • Northeast Utilities Service Co. v. FERC, 993 F.2d 937 (1st Cir. 1993) (briefed case involving major utility merger).
  • Northwest Pipeline Corp. v. FERC, 986 F.2d 1330 (10th Cir. 1993) (briefed and argued successful defense of agency order involving take-or-pay charges paid by natural gas pipeline).
  • Habersham Mills v. FERC, 976 F.2d 1381 (11th Cir. 1992) (briefed and argued successful defense of federal hydropower licensing authority against attack on Commerce Clause grounds).
  • Friends of the Ompompanoosuc v. FERC, 968 F.2d 1549 (2nd Cir. 1992) (briefed and argued successful defense of agency order granting federal license to small hydroelectric power developer).