In the rapidly evolving fields of communications and energy services, the race is won by the swiftest and the best informed. That is why the depth of Moss & Barnett's Regulated Entities group helps to maximize our clients' business opportunities and to keep them abreast of the constant regulatory and legislative changes.
Our Regulated Entities group represents several innovative companies, associations and advocacy groups in several states, including:
Local exchange
Interexchange
Cable television
Wireless
Direct broadcast satellite and transport services
Electric and gas utilities
The entrepreneurial culture of communications and energy providers makes our attorneys' in-depth knowledge of these industries all the more essential. Clients value that depth of understanding and the consistent, one-on-one attention they receive.
Clients' confidence in Moss & Barnett is well placed. We are one of the very few law firms in the region with attorneys practicing full-time in communications and utility regulation. Our attorneys average 17 years in the field and often take leadership roles in developing and shaping state laws and rule making. In addition, they have been consistently involved in federal rule makings. Our attorneys' expertise and dedication to our clients' success make them the ideal counselors and advocates in a highly competitive arena.
We offer our communications and energy clients the following services:
Business
Structure and negotiation of contracts and joint ventures
Mergers, sales and acquisitions
Real estate, employment, tax and other business and operational needs
Regulation
Advocacy and evidentiary hearing before local, state (PUC) and federal agencies regarding rate setting, licensing and other matters
Negotiation of interconnection agreements under the Telecommunications Act
Arbitrations and appellate review
Rule-making at both state PUCs and the federal agencies
Analysis and application of state law and the Telecommunications Act
[08/10] Rock Energy Coop. v. Village of Rockton In a non-profit, consumer-owned utility company's suit against a village seeking a declaratory judgment, claiming that the village does not have proper authority to purchase or condemn assets used by natural gas and electric utilities in the area, district court's dismissal of the suit is affirmed where: 1) the chance of future eminent domain proceedings in this case is too remote to support the claim that plaintiff is trying to litigate; and 2) state court's conclusion that, in litigation between the same parties, that the MOU agreement is unenforceable is entitled to preclusive effect under Illinois law, and to the extent that the MOU has a role to play in this case, it includes a clear choice-of-forum clause directing all litigation to the state court.
[08/10] TNA Merchant Projs., Inc. v. FERC In petitions for review of two orders of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), holding that the rate schedule petitioner proposed for supplying reactive power to the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) constituted a "changed rate" that was subject to the suspension and refund provisions of section 205(e) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. section 824d(e), the petitions are granted where the Commission failed to respond to petitioner's argument that its rate could not be classified as "changed" since it was not previously filed.
