# Amicus Curiae Brief — Semopora Generation Generation v. Public Public Utilities Utilities Commission Commission Commission of California (Nos. 06-1454, 06-1468) > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385017_1636%3A06 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief - **Published:** January 1, 2007 ## Text Nos. Qeuwoe & 06-1468 / Nos. 06-1457 & IN THE Supreme Court of the Writed States AVG 6 - 2007 OFFICE OF SUPREME count Us SEMPRA GENERATION, ET AL., AND DYNEGY POWER MARKETING, INC., ET AL., Petitioners, Vv. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL., Respondents. MORGAN STANLEY CAPITAL GROUP, INC., AND CALPINE ENERGY SERVICES, L.P., ET AL., ‘ Petitioners, PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1 OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ET AL., Respondents. On Petitions for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit BRIEF OF THE CANADIAN ELECTRICITY ASSOCIATION AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS DAVID C. FREDERICK Counsel of Record SCOTT H. ANGSTREICH BRENDAN J. CRIMMINS DANIEL G. BIRD KELLOGG, HUBER, HANSEN, TODD, EVANS & FIGEL, P.L.L.C. 1615 M Street, N.W., Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 326-7900 Counsel for Amicus August 6, 2007 ANN NR RT RENTS BURNERS OMEN nN SS RN RRR RL QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the Court should grant certiorari to review decisions of the Ninth Circuit authorizing the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to abrogate valid, volun- tarily negotiated wholesale energy contracts without proof that abrogation is in the public interest — decisions that will significantly harm the vital energy trade between the United States and Canada. li TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PRP Riey E RAREY EMRE BID aces ccc sicccccccaccccoccssccssccosssccossenscaacs i EE TURF IE I asi ssssesscsscsasesscccccossscsssccssscoseosens iv INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ................cccccccssseceeneeees 1 acne daneesatinacassdiaesentesisasesobansasubontiitens 2 BUBIMARET OF ARGUMENT. ..........cccccsccssossescsossesscssssoness 5 i ieiliaiiiaiiali tii csaikanicbtesadanisidsaandeneditnadeicadinss 6 I. CANADIAN ELECTRICITY AND NATU- RAL GAS PLAY AN IMPORTANT AND GROWING ROLE IN UNITED STATES UPSET PMN TREAD Asnihansedshesssnaccdasinescrsationsnssecsees 6 II. THE NINTH CIRCUITS DECISIONS IN THESE CASES DISCOURAGE CANA- DIAN ELECTRICITY EXPORTS TO THE ER ME TNE 5 sk saiiallshabnanancicnssabsadipesanenasasenenens 8 A. The Decisions Below Create Strong Dis- incentives For The Exercise Of Political Will To Support Power Exports To The inc seaiiivieicickecscateishcallptlidags Vosnhanrninndae 9 B. The Decisions Below Create Asymmet- rical Risk That May Discourage Power Exports To The United States ....................... 14 C. The Decisions Below May Cause Cana- dian Regulators To Prohibit Energy Producers From Exporting To The a ee asus 15 Ill. THE NINTH CIRCUITS DECISIONS UNDERMINE THE UNITED STATES’ EEE © PRR IID ones ss ccnsiccesascnsaseascententass 17 ill A. By Encouraging FERC To Interfere With Energy Contracts, The Decisions Below Threaten The United States’ Ability To Comply With NAFTA Article B. The Decisions Below Undermine The Purposes Of Treaty Provisions De- signed To Ensure Reliable Energy III ia besti catcatehnceaidccun tesnedtsiiamisenibade ehakininatiaiiiaibai 19 PUP si istsieenisnnccsinisasentsannnadiasibashsenaththiniinnabesiutlanes 20 iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES United States FPC v. Sierra Pac. Power Co., 350 U.S. 348 ei tiniahinbitinasitslibibaiinieincdienassnibicscannasiibiicss 1, 3, 13, 18, 19 United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Mobile Gas Serv. Corp., 360 U.S. 332 (1956) ...........ccscscccees 1, 3, 13, 18, 19 Canada ATCO Gas & Pipelines Ltd. v. Alberta (Energy & CPOEER. ERED Te 2 BOER. FSD cv vvvcsesscsccnesscscdscccccccoceses 15 Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation v. British Columbia Hydro & Power Auth., [2901] 3 F.C. ese inewicticsessiahbeckdacianielipnd shad taba bmieheasimsaciniandinntésdeuserb