§ 824e. 19 . Even if California were correct that FERC has exclusive authority over wholesale rates, but not sales, we- observe without deciding that the distinction appears to carry little weight on these facts. . According to California, by failing to adhere to their tariff obligations to provide reserve energy capacity, the companies rendered the ISO incapable of maintaining the grid's stability by maintaining supply and demand. Thus its allegation goes directly to wholesale market activities. 20 . While California argues that its unfair competition laws extend broadly beyond mere regulation of interstate wholesale power rates, the fact that its claims are founded upon state laws of general applicability-does not counsel against preemption. See Duke Energy, 267 F.3d at 1056-59 (<HOLDING>). 21 . With respect to fraud, we note that we
holding that in light of the presumption against preemption there is no field preemption of state unfair competition claims that rely on a substantial question of federal patent law because congress has not expressed its clear and manifest intention to preempt that area of law holding preemption by cal govt code  8572 a law of general applicability recognizing the applicability of choice of law clauses in contracts holding that a party did not waive its preemption defense where its answer did not specifically mention preemption but contained a broader defense that was capable of encompassing preemption holding removal and preemption are distinct concepts erisa preemption does not allow removal unless complete preemption exists