Supreme Court of the United States ————
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
No. 12-980 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ———— THE STATE OF NEVADA, ET AL., Petitioners, v. RELIANT ENERGY, INC., ET AL., Respondents. ———— On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Nevada ———— BRIEF IN OPPOSITION ———— ORRIN L. HARRISON III J. GREGORY COPELAND AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & MARK R. ROBECK FELD LLP AARON M. STREETT 1700 Pacific Ave., Ste. 4100 Counsel of Record Dallas, Texas 75201-4624 BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. (214) 969-2860 910 Louisiana St. Houston, Texas 77002 Counsel for Respondent (713) 229-1234 CenterPoint Energy, Inc. [email protected] JACK DICANIO Counsel for Respondents Reliant SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, Energy, Inc. and Reliant MEAGHER & FLOM, LLP Resources, Inc. 300 S. Grand Ave., Ste. 3400 Los Angeles, California 90071 (213) 687-5430 Counsel for Respondent Kathleen M. Zanaboni WILSON-EPES PRINTING CO., INC. – (202) 789-0096 – WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 QUESTION PRESENTED Whether state-law antitrust claims asserting price fixing in wholesale natural-gas transactions within FERC’s exclusive jurisdiction are preempted by the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. § 717 et seq, particularly where FERC determined both that it had jurisdiction over the transactions at issue and that the transactions were lawful. (i) ii CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to this Court’s Rule 29.6, Respondents submit this corporate disclosure statement. After the underlying lawsuit was filed, Respondents Reliant Energy, Inc. and Reliant Energy Services, Inc. were a part of a series of name changes and corporate transactions. Reliant Energy, Inc. changed its name to RRI Energy, Inc. and subsequently merged with Mirant Corp. to become GenOn Energy, Inc.; 100% of its stock is now owned by NRG Energy, Inc. (NYSE:NRG). GenOn Energy, Inc. indirectly owns 100% of the stock of RRI Energy Services, Inc., which is now known as RRI Energy Services, LLC. Only T. Rowe Price owns more than 10% of the shares of NRG Energy, Inc. Respondent CenterPoint Energy, Inc. (NYSE: CNP) has no parent corporation and there are no publicly held companies that own 10% or more of CenterPoint Energy, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Question Presented.................................................... i Corporate Disclosure Statement.............................. ii Introduction................................................................ 1 Statement.................................................................... 2 I. Background..................................................... 2 A. Statutory and Regulatory Background............................................... 2 B. Factual Background ................................ 5 II. Proceedings Below......................................... 6 A. District Court Proceedings..................... 6 B. The Nevada Supreme Court’s Decision..................................................... 7 Reasons For Denying The Petition ......................... 9 I. There Is No Conflict Over Whether The NGA Preempts Antitrust Claims Challenging Wholesale Sales Within FERC’s Jurisdiction...................................... 10 A. No conflict with the Ninth Circuit’s decisions warrants further review in this case..................................................... 11 B. There is no conflict between the decision below and the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Illinois v. Panhandle Eastern ................................. 15 II. The Decision Below Does Not Conflict With Any Decision Of This Court ................ 17 A. There is no conflict with Isla Petroleum. ................................................ 17 (iii) iv TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued Page B. There is no conflict with California and Otter Tail........................................... 19 III. The Decision Below Is Correct..................... 21 Conclusion................................................................... 26 v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES AEP Tex. N. Co. v. Tex. Indus. Energy Consumers, 473 F.3d 581 (5th Cir. 2006).................................. 20 Ark. La. Gas Co. v. Hall, 453 U.S. 571 (1981) ................................................ 20 Cal. v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831 (9th Cir. 2004).................................. 20 Cal. v. Fed. Power Comm’n, 369 U.S. 482 (1962) .......................................... 17, 19 City of Arlington v. FCC, No. 11-1545, slip op. (U.S. May 20, 2013) ........................................................................ 22 Cnty. of Stanislaus v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 114 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 1997).................................. 20 Crosby v. Nat’l Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (2000) ................................................ 11 E. & J. Gallo Winery v. EnCana Corp., 503 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2007)....................... passim Entergy La., Inc. v. La. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 539 U.S. 39 (2003) .................................................. 19 Exxon Corp. v. Eagerton, 462 U.S. 176 (1983) ................................................ 21 Illinois v. Panhandle E. Pipe Line Co., 935 F.2d 1469 (7th Cir. 1991).......................... 15, 16 In re Enron Corp., 2005 WL 3873899 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2006) ........................................................................ 16 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page In re: W. States Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust Litig., --- F.3d ---, 2013 WL 1449919 (9th Cir. Apr. 10, 2013).............................. 13, 14, 15 Kurns v. R.R. Friction Prods. Corp., 132 S. Ct. 1261 (2012) ............................................ 23 Leggett v. Duke Energy Corp., 308 S.W.3d 843 (Tenn. 2010) .....................................13, 17, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26 Mobil Oil Exploration & Prod. Se. Inc. v. United Distrib. Cos., 498 U.S. 211 (1991) ................................................ 25 N. Nat. Gas Co. v. Kan. Comm’n, 372 U.S. 84 (1963) ........................................ 7, 21, 23 Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States, 410 U.S. 366 (1973) .................................... 17, 18, 19 Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 of Grays Harbor Cnty. Wash. v. IDACORP Inc., 379 F.3d 641 (9th Cir. 2004).................................. 26 Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 of Snohomish Cnty. v. Dynegy Power Mktg. Inc., 384 F.3d 756 (9th Cir. 2004).................17, 20, 23, 26 Puerto Rico Dept. of Consumers Affairs v. Isla Petrol. Corp., 485 U.S. 495 (1988) .................................... 17, 18, 19 Schneidewind v. ANR Pipeline Co., 485 U.S. 293 (1988) ...........................9, 18, 21, 22, 23 Simon v. Keyspan Corp., 694 F.3d 196 (2d Cir. 2012) ................................... 20 vii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page Square D Co. v. Niagara Frontier Bureau, 476 U.S. 409 (1986) ................................................ 19 Transcont’l Gas Pipe Line Corp. v. State Oil & Gas Bd. of Miss., 474 U.S. 409 (1986) .......3, 8, 9, 11, 13, 18, 21, 24, 25 United States v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89 (2000) .................................................. 18 Utilimax.com, Inc. v. PPL Energy Plus, LLC, 378 F.3d 303 (3rd Cir. 2004) ................................. 20 STATUTES Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. § 717 et seq. ......... passim 15 U.S.C. § 3301(21) ..................................................... 3 15 U.S.C. § 3431(a)(1)(A) ............................................. 3 Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-621, 92 Stat. 3350................3, 8, 9, 18, 22, 24 Wellhead Decontrol Act of 1989, Pub. L. No. 101-60, 103 Stat. 157..................... 3, 8, 9, 22, 24 ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES Enron Power Mktg., Inc., 103 FERC ¶ 61,343 (2003) ................................ 5, 23 Reliant Energy Servs., Inc., 105 FERC ¶ 61,008 (2003) ............................ 5, 6, 22 18 C.F.R. § 284.402(a) .................................................. 4 Regulations Governing Blanket Marketer Sales Certificates, 57 Fed. Reg. 57,952 (Nov. 30, 1992).......................................................... 4 viii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page Amendments to Blanket Sales Certificates, 68 Fed. Reg. 66,337 (Nov. 17, 2003) .................................................................... 4 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ———— NO. 12-980 THE STATE OF NEVADA, ET AL., Petitioners, v. RELIANT ENERGY, INC., ET AL., Respondents. ———— On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Nevada ———— BRIEF IN OPPOSITION ———— INTRODUCTION Petitioners assert a split over whether “federal natural gas legislation and regulation * * * preempt[s] * * * state antitrust law” claims. Pet. 13. No such split is presented on the facts of this case. The Nevada Supreme Court correctly held that antitrust claims challenging wholesale natural gas transactions within FERC’s jurisdiction are preempted by the Natural Gas Act’s grant of exclusive federal jurisdiction over those transactions. No court has held that states may invade this exclusively federal do- main by authorizing state-law antitrust claims that chal- lenge the prices charged in FERC-regulated wholesale 2 transactions. Accordingly, the Court should deny the pe- tition. STATEMENT I. BACKGROUND A. Statutory And Regulatory Background 1. Enacted in 1938, the Natural Gas Act (NGA) grants FERC exclusive jurisdiction over, inter alia, “the sale in interstate commerce of natural gas for resale for ultimate public consumption” and “natural-gas compa- nies engaged in such * * * sale.” 15 U.S.C. § 717(b). For jurisdictional wholesale transactions, the NGA requires that “all rates and charges * * * shall be just and reason- able” and declares that “any such rate or charge that is not just and reasonable is hereby declared